In April 2015, Toshiba company announced that it had overstated its profits by nearly $2 billion over the past 7 years. Although misstatements are frowned upon in the accounting profession, there must be a reason why the overstatements began. This announcement raises many questions, especially by investors, as to who is responsible? There is definitely a lack of ethical behavior that must is associated with this event and one must analyze the entire situation in order to effectively account for who should be held liable.
During 2007, a financial crisis began to emerge in the United States. Home ownership had peaked at 70% and the Federal funds rate had jumped from 1% to 5.25%. This partially explains why no one was interested in buying …show more content…
Pretty soon it became obvious within individual business units that the only way to achieve these Challenges was to do so through using irregular accounting techniques. These techniques included booking future profits early, pushing back losses into later years, pushing back charges and other techniques that resulted in overstated profits. This same pattern continued under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Hisao Tanaka.
The employees that were pressured into the false reporting should not be the ones to blame since a tenet of the Japanese culture is to not question a superior when given an order. Investors who may file any lawsuits should direct their attack at the CEOs, who knowingly forced misstatements thinking no one would find out because of such poor internal controls. My stance is that, had this behavior been within U.S. borders, the CEOs should be sued for fraud, and the auditor should be sued for one of two claims. Claim one would be that the auditor had the civil liability under federal securities law to discover materially misstated financial statements. The second claim could be a criminal liability, stating the auditor knowingly issued an incorrect audit report. There is only one loophole for the auditor, and that is if he/she is able to successfully prove that he/she was not negligent and that management's
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The mortgage crisis of 2007 marked catastrophe for millions of homeowners who suffered from foreclosure and short sales. Most of the problems involving the foreclosing of families’ homes could boil down to risky borrowing and lending. Lenders were pushed to ensure families would be eligible for a loan, when in previous years the same families would have been deemed too high-risk to obtain any kind of loan. With the increase in high-risk families obtaining loans, there was a huge increase in home buyers and subsequently a rapid increase in home prices. As a result, prices peaked and then began falling just as fast as they rose. Soon after families began to default on their mortgages forcing them either into foreclosure or short sales. Who was to blame for the risky lending and borrowing that caused the mortgage meltdown? Many might blame the company Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in reality the entire system of buying and selling and free market failed home owners and the housing economy.
During the early 2000 's, the United States housing market experienced growth at an unprecedented rate, leading to historical highs in home ownership. This surge in home buying was the result of multiple illusory financial circumstances which reduced the apparent risk of both lending and receiving loans. However, in 2007, when the upward trend in home values could no longer continue and began to reverse itself, homeowners found themselves owing more than the value of their properties, a trend which lent itself to increased defaults and foreclosures, further reducing the value of homes in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The 2008 crash of the near-$7-billion housing industry dragged down the entire U.S. economy, and by extension, the global economy, with it, therefore having a large part in triggering the global recession of 2008-2012.
The housing crisis of the late 2000s rocked the economy and changed the landscape of the real estate business for years to come. Decades of people purchasing houses unfordable houses and properties with lenient loans policies led to a collective housing bubble. When the banking system faltered and the economy wilted, interest rates were raised, mortgages increased, and people lost their jobs amidst the chaos. This all culminated in tens of thousands of American losing their houses to foreclosures and short sales, as they could no longer afford the mortgage payments on their homes. The United States entered a recession and homeownership no longer appeared to be a feasible goal as many questioned whether the country could continue to support a middle-class. Former home owners became renters and in some cases homeless as the American Dream was delayed with no foreseeable return. While the future of the economy looked bleak, conditions gradually improved. American citizens regained their jobs, the United States government bailed out the banking industry, and regulations were put in place to deter such events as the mortgage crash from ever taking place again. The path to homeowner ship has been forever altered, as loans in general are now more difficult to acquire and can be accompanied by a substantial down payment.
In conclusion, homeownership in the United States have decline over the past years even being the lowest it has ever been, but has had an improving and strong market beginning in 2012 after a 27% decline from the 2006 peak, and the increasing homeownership rate is a worthwhile policy to allow the United State economy to
Post-housing/financial crisis of 2007-2009, the housing market seems to be showing signs of improvement after great downturn. With the downturn in housing prices, many homeowners did not have enough equity to avoid taking a loss on the sale of their homes so they are sitting with home loans based off of higher-than-current mortgages. However, in November the National Association of Home Builders’ sentiment index jumped to 20, which is the highest reading in over a year. Demand for mortgages has also seemed to pick up a bit according to the Fed’s 4th quarter loan survey. Construction remains at historically low levels but has increased as of late, and the number of
The dot-com bubble in 2000 was the start to the, still current, historically low interest rates – all thanks to the Federal Reserve. Since interest rates were so low, many Americans decided that now was the time to get the “American Dream” and buy houses, since the values were going up and mortgage and insurance rates were so low. By serially refinancing, people were quite literally treating their homes as a money bank, and not thinking twice of the equity they were loosing in the process, because they thought that the value would only go up, while their mortgages would decrease, and were blinded by the so called “American Dream”.
The economic decline has possible home buyers, especially first time home buyers, scared to invest anything into the housing market. With the fear of another depression in the back of everyone's minds, some businesses are attempting to clarify the pros of home ownership.
Unfortunately, all those efforts have not been vindicated because of the following reasons: Accounting did not cause the recent corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. Unreliable financial statements were the results of management decisions, fraudulent or otherwise. To blame management’s misdeeds on fraudulent financial statements casts accountants as the scapegoats and misses the real issue. Reliable financial reports rely to a certain extent on effective internal controls, but effective internal controls rely to a large extent on a reliable management system coupled with strong corporate governance. when management deliberately or even unlawfully manipulates business processes in order to achieve desirable financial goals and present untruthful financial reports to the public, accounting systems are abused and victims rather than perpetrators.
During 2007 through 2010 there existed what we commonly refer to as the subprime mortgage crisis. Through deduction of readings by those considered esteemed in the realm of finance - such as Ben Bernanke - the crisis arose out of an earlier expansion of mortgage credit. This included extending mortgages to borrowers who previously would have had difficulty getting mortgages; this both contributed to and was facilitated by rapidly rising home prices. Pre-subprime mortgages, those looking to buy homes found it difficult to obtain mortgages if they had below average credit histories, provided small down payments or sought high-payment loans without the collateral, income, and/or credit history to match with their mortgage request. Indeed some high-risk families could obtain small-sized mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), otherwise, those facing limited credit options, rented. Because of these processes, home ownership fluctuated around 65 percent, mortgage foreclosure rates were low, and home construction and house prices mainly reflected swings in mortgage interest rates and income.
FDR’s affordable housing initiative was responsible for the rapid expansion of home ownership throughout the United States (Allen and Barth, 2012). This was accomplished in part through the creation of The Federal National Mortgage Association, which provided affordable low down payment mortgages extended over a 30-year period of time. Over the past several decades the United States economic policy has been to encourage home ownership (Bluhm, Overbeck and Wagner, 2010).
The housing crisis in the late 2000’s was created in part from subprime loans that lenders gave to individuals that did not have to provide proof of income that they could afford the house. This was a disaster likely to repeat itself. If a person is hoping to buy a home, they will buy whatever the lender allows them to purchase even though it could be a financial stretch. Lenders, builders, sellers, appraisers, buyers, owners, and governmental policy makers are all still gambling with the economic future of both their buyers and the American economy as a whole.
As the WMI accounting fraud case shows, change exposes organizations to considerable financial fraud risks. The top officials used acquisitions and merger as means to perpetuate this fraud. This financial fraud took place due to the organizational breakdown of internal and external audit controls. As a result, the top management was able to commit this massive fraud without facing any resistance. It never occurred to them that they were violating the law because what mattered to them was pocketing as much as they could.
Around 2006 the price of houses began to fall substantially fast. “The oversupply of houses and lack of buyers pushed the house prices down until they really plunged in the late 2006 and early 2007” (The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Explained). These actions threw investors into a big dilemma. In the beginning they believed buying the mortgages would bring them a profit, but quickly realized that the mortgages would cost them more financial damage than reselling the homes. “Nationwide, home vales have declined about 16% since the summer of 2006 and experts project that the drop will continue until homes have lost about 25% of their value” (Biroonak, 2008). In other words mortgage homes are “underwater”, that is, the mortgage owed equals or exceeds the value of the house (Biroonak, 2008). Investors and homeowners started to go more in debt trying to pay off their original debts.
Establish Credibility: According to US News, the great American dream of owning a home appears poised for a comeback. Real estate company Trulia reports that in many parts of the country, rents are rising while housing prices are falling, making buying a home more affordable. Trulia found that in 98 out of 100 major metropolitan areas, including Detroit, Atlanta, and Cleveland, buying has become more affordable than renting.” I think the mortgage catastrophe of 2001 left prospective home buyers afraid of buying a house without being extremely certain that is the right decision.
Declining price attract people with the easy loan facilities of their banks. And banks are ready with very high risk loans. This excess supply of home inventory placed significant downward pressure on prices. As prices declined, more homeowners were at risk of default and foreclosure. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller price index, by November 2007, average U.S. housing prices had fallen approximately 8% from their Q2 2006 peak and by May 2008 they had fallen 18.4%. The price decline in December 2007 versus the year-ago period was 10.4% and for May 2008 it was 15.8%. Housing prices are expected to continue declining until this inventory of surplus homes (excess supply) is reduced to more typical levels.