Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What was Enron? Why did Enron come to prominence? What happened at Enron? What were the accounting warning signs? What does accounting research say about why they were ignored? What are the organizational impediments to leveraging expertise?
1986 - Kenneth Lay is appointed 1989 - Over the years, the company becomes
the largest natural gas merchant in North America and the United Kingdom
Aug. 22, 2001 Sherron Watkins, a vice president, writes to CEO Lay, warning him that the company might "implode in a wave of accounting scandals."
Enron gave a related party called Raptor 3.7 million shares of Enron common stock Enron received $1.2 billion in notes receivables
Enron called this income! Andersens Duncan accepts this accounting in 2000 and 2001 over the objections of Andersens technical accounting partners
Cash
3% Cash
Asset
Guarantee
Cash
Transactions
12-2-01 Enron files Ch. 11 bankruptcy 01-09-02 -- Justice Department opens a criminal investigation 01-10-02 Andersen admits Houston office shredded documents 01-17-02 Enron fires Andersen 01-25-02 -- Enron Vice Chairman commits suicide 02-02 David Duncan, Andersen auditor in charge of Enron audit, is charged with obstruction of justice
03-02 Andersen firm is charged with obstruction of justice 04-02 David Duncan plea bargains for a reduced sentence in return for implicating the entire Andersen firm in the obstruction of justice charge 06-02 Andersen is found guilty of obstruction of justice and ends the 89 year practice of auditing.
others on the audit team others in your office others auditing in the same industry in other offices
All this consultation is mediated by computer data bases, electronic mail and expert systems that collect data just in case Finally consult national office technical gurus
Situation assessment stage Searching data bases for prior similar cases where the facts are roughly the same to current case
Central Research Unit (Salterio 1994, 1996) Accounting Consultation Unit (Salterio and Denham 1997)
Examine managers who interface with computer system to advise audit partners about appropriate accounting policies. Effectiveness measures (Table 2, Salterio 1996) over six month tour of duty managers
Increase number of on point findings from 4.26 per case to 7.63 per case (66% increase) Review time (e.g. quality control) decreases 0.93 to 0.68 (33% decrease) Number of reviewer enquiries decreases
Search computer data bases on line decreased by 2.5 minutes Total time to perform research reduced by .7 hour More complex search using more Boolean operators per search Total number of precedents increase 12.5 Average number of precedents increase 3.3
Salterio (1996) shows that in searching for precedents used by local offices there is a significant expertise effect for those located in the Central Research Unit for six months Think about the amount of expertise gained through years of national office residency that partners in the Accounting Consultation Unit gain
Salterio (1994, 1996) done in US Salterio and Denham (1997) done in Canada but strong analogy can be made to US setting (and most of the research was repeated in US environment) Was not allowed to study Andersen, the only member of the then Big 6 firms to refuse to participate
OM is composed of the individual memories of firm members plus the firms standard operating procedures (SOPs), organizational structure and organizational culture as well as any internal and /or external archives (data bases) SOPs are embedded both in human routines as well as computer systems
2 Canadian firms (and all US firms studied) are classified as discovering organizations:
Customer focus
Audit office client is focus hence understanding business reason for issue is key
Informal and formal searches made utilizing all resources available
Consultations that should have been made even if not mandatory by firm policy. Consistency across clients was gold standard
An objection by the ACU partner to the accounting desired by the local office partner (and called for by the client management) must be reported on and judged by the senior managers of the audit firm. Almost never was an ACU position overruled. Remember, the only Big 6 firm I was unable to get assess to was Andersen (see 3rd page (674) of Salterio and Denham (1997)).
Until roughly 1990 Andersen had followed similar practices to other Big 6 firms
A very strong and powerful national office technical group If anything, they were the most conservative auditors of all of the Big 6 In early 1990s Andersen changed its policy to help local office partners obtain new business
1999 Carl Bass repeatedly objects to early Enron accounting for the various partners (i.e. the Raptors)
His continual objections caused Duncan (at the behest of Enron) to ask Andersens national office to remove Bass. National office accepted his request and transferred Bass.
Unlike the other firms, the local office partner (i.e. Duncan) could overrule the technical partner (i.e. Bass) by reference to the practice director in his own office. Overruling does not have to be referred to Andersens CEO and executives as in other audit firms. Business Week highlighted this practice difference in its coverage of Enron in early 2002
Senior Andersen managers would have been in the decision making loop in 1999. Rarely do senior audit firm managers overrule technical partners in other firms. Enrons initial rogue accounting could have been stopped in 1999!!!! Lack of expertise was not the reason Andersen failed in its audit responsibility!!!!
Maybe not, but the accounting might not have been used to prolong the life of Enron. Enron might have had difficulty surviving if the correct accounting had been done in 1999. Early discovery could have prevented many of the transactions that were entered into in 2000 and 2001 that caused the vast majority of the losses.
Well maybe not, . . . . . But, what if I had been able to get into Andersen in 1996-97? Would they have listened to the finding that they were an outlier among their peers? Some interesting evidence:
In Canada, one of the conditioned learning firms moved to the discovery mode after my research was made public. The mixed firm has also moved strongly to a discovery mode.
Leveraging expertise
Andersen had:
state of the art computer technology, computer systems and people to operate and develop the technology cutting edge technology which it applied to both manage the individual audit and to manage the firm as a whole. some of the best minds in accounting industry were located in their Professional Standards Group and were supported with state of the art technological and systems resources
Leveraging expertise
but the firms organizational memory was set up in such a fashion that the experts and their support systems were used to support marketing the firm instead of ensuring the highest quality accounting experts, expert systems and technology without assess to managerial power to prevail can result in the same decisions that would be made in the absence of such expertise.