Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Friday Footnotes: PCAOB Rebukes BDO; SEC Juking the Stats; Dropping LSD at Work | 11.06.15

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

Always read the footnotes, capital market servants. Drop us links and tips over the weekend by hitting the button at the top of the page or emailing us directly. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest. Submit questions, elaborate spreadsheets and Marco Rubio's tax plan slams to Open Items.

PCAOB Admonishes BDO USA for Quality Control Lapses [CW]

Dewey Jury’s Deadlock Exposes a System’s Flaws Interviews with several jurors make clear that they were floundering during their deliberations and could not agree on even the most basic definitions. The jurors sent a note to the judge asking for an explanation of what it means to deliberate. There was confusion over the concept of burden of proof, even though they were repeatedly told it was the government’s obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to wrestle with arcane rules related to accounting adjustments and how they applied to the dozens of charges against each defendant. They also debated irrelevant tangents, such as why Mr. Sanders and Mr. DiCarmine had such deep suntans. [DealBook]

Is Your Company Encouraging Employees to Share What They Know? [HBR]

[Emory Professor Urska]Velikonja examined 9,679 “enforcement actions” taken by the SEC between 2000 and 2014. She calculates that the SEC inflates the number of actions it brings each year by 23-34% by double-counting and other forms of padding. [The Economist]

Internship Training [Open Items]

Doing LSD at work. [ReplyAll (podcast)]

Wyoming Has Gonorrhea' billboard removed after complaints [UPI]

Related Posts

Dita von Teese’s Accountant Understands Why She Has to Spend $70k on a Dress

Last month we mentioned that while we enjoy her genius, we wouldn’t want to be of Lady Gaga’s accountant. She definitely falls into the “clients that make you want to jump out the window” bucket.

Likewise, if we had our choice of clients, we wouldn’t be chasing down burlesque artists that marry rock stars, in this case, Dita von Teese. Not because we don’t enjoy burlesque artists and the rock stars they love, quite the contrary actually; it’s just seems that the headaches associated with such a client would be more trouble than it would be worth.


Surprisingly, DVT takes money quite seriously and is not as slipshod as you might expect.

“I refuse to go to the hair salon and have a $300 hair dye job – I do it myself at home with an $8 dye kit… I’ve always been a saver…I saved at least 15[%] of everything I earned and invested it in mutual funds“

Jesus, talk about sensible. However there is this glimmer:

“I think nothing of spending $8,000 on a corset for my show. My accountant once said he couldn’t understand how I spent $70,000 on a single dress but then he came to my show and saw how lavish it was and told me afterwards that now he understood.“

Those are work related expenses though; count us unimpressed. We’re expecting Gaga-esque negligent wasting of money. Like seriously getting carried away.

“I bought [a Jaguar] one night on eBay for $35,000 when I’d had too much champagne.“

Yes. That’s the best she can offer. Plus, there’s this:

“I pay my [credit card] balances off every month.”

More sensible behavior. Doesn’t sound like she’d be that bad of a client at all. Hell, she probably even keeps all her receipts. L. Gaga’s accountant might consider asking her for some advice.

Dita von Teese: ‘I spent $70,000 on a single dress for my show’ [Telegraph]

Audited Financial Statements for NFL Ventures, L.P. Are Now Available for Your Viewing Pleasure

Today in leaked sports organization financial statements news, Deadspin’s latest scoop is the audited financial statements of NFL Ventures, L.P. and Subsidiaries. NFL Ventures consists of the following subsidiaries: NFL Enterprises, NFL Properties, NFL Productions and NFL International. These companies perform operations from broadcasting to advertising to the NFL Network to Super Bowl hospitality.

As you can imagine, professional football in the United States is a pretty lucrative business. Forget the mess that is the

Ugh. That’s an ugly one, huh? I managed to get pretty close on the math, however. If you multiply the total expenses by 1.09 and then subtract that total from the gross revenues of $1.7 billion, you get the $1.2 billion (within $15-20 million or so). Craggs writes that this “accounts for the drop in net income” although that doesn’t seem correct (I emailed him to see if he can clarify) but is correct in saying that this remittance is simply “money moving from one pocket to another.”

Other than that, the report, also audited by Deloitte, is fairly lengthy and seems fairly innocuous since the companies as a whole appear to be extremely healthy (e.g. robust working capital, growing operating profit, impressive cash flow). There was a cash distribution FYE ’10 of $136 million to the limited partners, however nothing else really stands out.

Of course if you’re a rabid football fan, this is all quite infuriating because it stands as evidence that the team owners simply want more money for themselves. And Craggs smartly points out that since the G-3 program ran dry in ’07, that left some owners in the lurch:

[T]he case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who’d exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn’t and now couldn’t because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.

The full report is on the next page. Enjoy.

Nfl Ventures

Here’s What Charlie Rangel Missed at His Ethics Trial

He really should have stuck around. He won on a couple of ’em, which is probably better than most people were expecting.

 


Of course Chuck isn’t going quietly:

How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the Ethics Subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room? I can only hope that the full Committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions.

[…]

The Committee’s findings are even more difficult to understand in view of yesterday’s declaration by the Committee’s chief counsel, Blake Chisam, that there was no evidence of corruption or personal gain in his findings.

From here forward, it is my hope that the full Ethics Committee will take into consideration the opinion of its chief counsel as well as the statement by Rep. Bobby Scott, a member of its investigatory subcommittee who said that any failings in my conduct were the result of “good faith mistakes” and were caused by “sloppy and careless recordkeeping, but were not criminal or corrupt.”

Earlier:
Charlie Rangel Has Heard Enough