When accounting goes unaccounted for
From the group description:
“Basically, we’re Accountants aaaaaand very sexy. Aint no pocket protectors here, we’re all about Montblancs and Prada. All sexy accountant impersonators will be removed.”
Lame? Perhaps. Surprising? Hardly, dude.
What’s even less surprising is that Joseph Stack has waaaaay more members/fans in his FB groups.
You may have heard that the company that encourages people to go broke by saving money, Groupon, filed a S-1 with the SEC last week to go public. It’s been a matter of hot debate as to whether this company is the real deal or simply another house of coupons. One matter that has several people sc is how the company accounts for its revenue. A reader dropped us this note yesterday:
Caleb
I am not one to bring up accounting questions on your blog as its not your web site’s background [Ed. note: Uh, you mean, accounting?]. I was wondering if you could post one question and make an exception as it relates to Groupon. How on earth did Groupon get away with Gross Revenue treatment and not net revenue? All my accounting friends from the Big 4 and even people who do not work on the Groupon audit at E&Y are stumped. All the literature points to net revenue which means they would not report gross revenue of 900 million but rather 200 million or so which represents their cut. Given how companies are valued on multiple of revenue this seems like a big issue. Any help would be appreciated by your readers.
Now it’s not exactly clear what our reader is referring to (feel free to comment below if you understand) but here’s a clip from the S-1:
Sorry for the squishiness. As you can see, Groupon is reporting revenue for 2010 of over $700 million (not sure about $900 million). They have a cost of revenue (aka cost of goods sold) of over $400 million with a “gross profit” of $279 million. Now, if you’re thinking “gross profit” should be “net revenue” you’re not alone.
From CNBC, there appears to be a debate over semantics:
Groupon accounts for its revenue differently than say eBay, and in a way that some say is misleading to potential investors. The company defines revenue as “the purchase price paid by customers.” Then there’s the issue of “the cost of revenue,” leaving the company with what it calls “gross profit,” which is “the amount of revenue we retain after paying an agreed upon percentage of the purchase price to the featured merchant.”
Here’s the thing: Many companies like eBay […], which also take a fee for transactions, would consider that “gross profit” number a “net revenue number.” UCLA Anderson School’s accounting lecturer Gordon Klein says the S-1 uses terms in a way he’s never used them before, and this unusual accounting tells him that investors should “run from the stock.” Others say this is a non-issue: Wedbush securities analyst Lou Kerner says that the company has done a totally adequate job outlining its accounting approach. Kerner says whether the company reports its revenue before or after direct costs should have zero impact on investors evaluation of the company.
And co-founder Andrew Mason admits that Groupon does things a little differently. Under a section entitled “We don’t measure ourselves in conventional ways” he writes, “we track gross profit [as a metric], which we believe is the best proxy for the value we’re creating.” But that’s all the explanation he gives. Later the filing states, “We believe gross profit is an important indicator for our business because it is a reflection of the value of our service to our merchants.” And under “How we measure our business” things are equally vague:
Gross profit. Our gross profit is the amount that we retain after paying our merchants an agreed upon percentage of the purchase price to the featured merchant. We believe gross profit is an important indicator for our business because it is a reflection of the value of our service to our merchants. Gross profit is influenced by the mix of deals we offer. For example, gross profit can vary depending on the category of product or service offered in a particular deal. Likewise, gross profit can be adversely impacted by offers that we make for the principal purpose of acquiring new subscribers or establishing our brand and building scale in a new market.
Throughout the S-1, the term “gross profit” is used 52 times. If you’re used to reading SEC Filings, the term may throw you off but ultimately the numbers are what theyare and the terms used seem secondary. If you believe “gross profit” is a bullshit metric for this business, fine that’s one thing but if they choose to use slightly unorthodox terminology, does that mean investors should ‘run from the stock’? Personally, I don’t happen to be customer of any of the banks underwriting this thing, so this of little consequence but accountants like to sweat the details, so feel free to make a case either way in the comments.
Yes, you read that headline correctly. Not inflation, not emerging nations, not more people on this planet than we have food to feed them and not Ben Bernanke’s penchant for leaning on the PRINT MORE button but inventory. Well, a specific inventory method and the accountants who encourage companies to use that particular method.
Speculators, the weather, biofuels and the growing appetite for meat in developing countries have all been blamed for the high food prices that have hit countries such as Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia particularly hard.
But what about the accountant accountants. Greg Smith, managing director of Global Commodities, an Australian investment fund, said fund managers were being unfairly scapegoated. He argued that measures to curb speculative activity, such as limits on contracts and higher margins (less reliance on borrowed funds when making trades), would not deal with the fundamental problems, such as the weather and, more pertinent from Smith’s viewpoint, just-in-time inventory.
“We have volatility in food prices because of inventory shortages,” said Smith, who was attending the fourth annual world agriculture investment summit in London, bringing together investment managers, policymakers and NGOs. “What we need is more inventory instead of this just-in-time approach. We need to look at how we increase buffer stocks of grain. After the second world war, governments would have three to six months of supply of grain. Now it’s two or three weeks.”
Smith feels the accountants bear the brunt of the blame for this just-in-time issue as they are the ones who try to convince companies to adopt this particular inventory method in the interest of cost cutting.
While they don’t specifically come out and blame the accountants like Smith, Oxfam recently published a paper called Preparing for Thin Cows in which they question the current view on food reserves. “International institutions have warned G20 leaders that renewed food price volatility is now a high risk. However, the same institutions have summarily dismissed food reserves as one of the ways to stabilise prices,” said the report’s co-author Thierry Kesteloot. “Food reserves were largely dismantled in the 1990s and have been ignored ever since as too expensive and ineffective.”
Check out this 2008 piece from The Hightower Report which foretells the problem with the just-in-time idea. “The combination of oversupply, ultra high interest rates and new business practices quickly turned the idea of owning extra inventory into financial heresy of the highest order. Accountants, bankers and MBAs descended on America’s businesses to preach the gospel of wringing every last ounce of unnecessary corn, wheat, cotton, copper or wing nuts out of every conceivable supply ‘pipeline.’ To a large degree, the gospel of just-in-time inventory control has prevailed right up to the present – or at least into 2007.” The article blames a global attitude that inventory can easily be had should it be needed – thereby eliminating the need to keep excess reserves – for just-in-time’s popularity.
Problem being this attitude assumes an unrealistic scenario in an inflationary environment in which 40% of the U.S. corn supply is used as “fuel” (ask Joe Kristan about ethanol if you’re not hip) and completely ignores unforeseen issues like, oh, I don’t know, drought and higher demand in emerging nations for corn-fed meat.
There’s a problem alright, just not sure if it’s with the accountants.
When you become a partner at a Big 4 firm, the culture rewards you with certain privileges. Some of these include: 1) the ability to strut out the door before 5 pm and no one gives you the stink eye; 2) stealing food out of the fridge without fear of retribution; 3) “Black” Starbucks cards; 4) private bathrooms that blast “You’re the Best” when you walk in the door, among others.
Unfortunately, it turns out that sometimes you lose some privileges when you take seat at the big table.
We previously mentioned Colin Tenner, who is suing PricewaterhouseCoopers for disability discrimination, alleging that he was fired after taking time off due to depression and anxiety. His suffering was caused, he claims, by a client bullying him (e.g. taking his lunch money, using emails as TP and returning them) and PwC’s mishandling of the situation.
His fellow partners weren’t buying it, claiming that he was a total wuss, “partners simply do not get sick” and possibly just faking it.
At first, we thought this sounded a little harsh but the Times Online is now reporting that there is a perfectly good explanation for partners’ reaction. They had a policy to back them up:
Mr Tenner, 45, said that a junior member of his team had raised a formal complaint against the same individual, which was investigated by PwC.
Although he complained about his treatment from the individual on several occasions over six months and had asked PwC to implement specific procedures in its anti-bullying policy, “nothing was done”, it is alleged.
Instead, Mr Tenner said, several senior managers told him that he was not protected by the anti-bullying policy because he was a partner.
Now this makes sense. Had this been one of P. Dubs’ rank and file, certainly there would have been hell to pay for this type of treatment by a client. But since a partner was involved, they figure your bully tolerance should be at such a keen level that no protection is necessary.
Bullying ‘did not apply’ to PwC partner [Times Online]