More handpicked essays just for you.
Contemporary accounting case 1.1 enron summary
Contemporary accounting case 1.1 enron summary
Enron scandal accounting failures
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Contemporary accounting case 1.1 enron summary
This week’s case study, Enron: Questionable Accounting Practices Bring New Regulation to the United States, reflects the increased government control regarding accounting and financial issues in corporations. This increased control was implemented due to the downward economic spiral occurring in the late 1990s. Although, Enron had successfully concealed their debt for years, they inevitably collapsed under an avalanche of debt and profit misrepresentation (Ferrell, Hirt, & Ferrell, 2009). Flawed principles and disclosures surfaced within accounting practices. Therefore, the government implemented the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provided oversight to corporate financial reporting protocols, ethical employee standards, and financial
On the surface, the motives behind decisions and events leading to Enron’s downfall appear simple enough: individual and collective greed born in an atmosphere of market euphoria and corporate arrogance. Hardly anyone—the company, its employees, analysts or individual investors—wanted to believe the company was too good to be true. So, for a while, hardly anyone did. Many kept on buying the stock, the corporate mantra and the dream. In the meantime, the company made many high-risk deals, some of which were outside the company’s typical asset risk control process. Many went sour in the early months of 2001 as Enron’s stock price and debt rating imploded because of loss of investor and creditor trust. Methods the company used to disclose its complicated financial dealings were all wrong and downright deceptive. The company’s lack of accuracy in reporting its financial affairs, followed by financial restatements disclosing billions of dollars of omitted liabilities and losses, contributed to its downfall. The whole affair happened under the watchful eye of Arthur Andersen LLP, which kept a whole floor of auditors assigned at Enron year-round.
Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts are important legislations in the corporate world because of their link to public and privately held companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in publicly traded companies. On the contrary, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to disentangle the confused web of financial service company valuations. Actually, these valuations are usually hidden by complex and unclear financial instruments. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley Act was fueled by recent incidents of accounting frauds by top executives of major corporations such as Enron. In contrast, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted as a response to the tendency by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, rating agencies, and accounting companies to serve up harmful offer of ruined assets and liabilities brought by systemic non-disclosure (Anand, 2011, p.1). While these regulations have some similarities and differences, they have a strong relationship with the financial markets.
It has been a decade since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act became in effect. Obviously, the SOX Act which aimed at increasing the confidence in the US capital market really has had a profound influence on public companies and public accounting firms. However, after Enron scandal which triggered the issue of SOX Act, public company lawsuits due to fraud still emerged one after another. As such, the efficacy of the 11-year-old Act has continually been questioned by professionals and public. In addition, the controversy about the cost and benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley Act has never stopped.
In July of 2002, Congress swiftly passed the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investors Protection Act at the time when corporations like Arthur Anderson, Enron and WorldCom fell due to fraudulent accounting practices and bad internal control. This bill, sponsored by Mike Oxley (R-OH) and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), became known as Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).It sought to restore public confidence in publicly traded companies and their accounting practices, though the companies listed above were prosecuted on laws that were already in place before SOX. Many studies have examined the effects of SOX on corporations in the past eleven years. The benefits are hard to quantify and the cost are rather hard to estimate including the effect on market efficiency.
The CFO, Andrew Fastow, systematically falsified there earnings by moving company losses off book and only reporting earnings, which led to Enron’s bankruptcy. Any safeguards or mechanisms that were in place to catch unethical behavior were thrown out the window when the corporate culture became a situation where every person was looking out for their own best interests. There were a select few employees that tried to get in front of the unethical accounting practices, but they were pushed aside and silenced. The corporate culture at Enron became a place where if an employee would not make unethical decisions then they would be terminated and the next person that would make those unethical decisions would replace them. Enron executives had no conscience or they would have cared for the people they ended up hurting. At one time, Enron probably was a growing company that had potential to make a difference, but because their lack of social responsibility and their excessive greed the company became known for the negative affects it had on society rather than the potential positive ones it could have had. Enron’s coercive power created fear amongst the employees, which created a corporate culture that drove everyone to make unethical decisions and eventually led to the downfall and bankruptcy of
A possible flaw of Sarbanes-Oxley is it failed to put up any resistance in thwarting the financial crisis. While the degree to which fraudulent behavior can be traced to the roots of the Great Panic of 2007 will likely be up for eternal debate, it might be telling that Sarbanes-Oxley effectively did nothing. It seems this could indicate that stronger incentives for whistleblowers (such as Dodd-Frank and perhaps other whistleblower protection regimes) are very necessary given the extreme social costs. This conclusion may be hasty, however, given the short time period between the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley and the crash. Not only is the status of Sarbanes-Oxley still in flux over a decade later, but one has to consider the substantial learning and switching costs associated with a regime with such a substantial ruach. Certainly, this is not to say that additional protections may in fact be necessary given the putative reluctance of lawyers to report fraud, but Sarbanes-Oxley likely needed more time to really crystalize and provide some level of predictability before it can be declared a bust.
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
The Oxford dictionary states that fraud is the “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain” (Oxford University Press, 2014). It is arguable that only individuals have the ability to engage in fraud, but these individuals may lead corporations, which allows corporations also to commit acts of fraud. From a high-level perspective for combating this issue, many governments build a regulatory environment that interacts through firms and individuals. This regulatory environment exists as a series of laws and directives on the various government entities interact to ensure this protection. These laws and directives protect the public from fraud. This coverage of the regulatory environment even protects the public from fraud that happens within a corporation. Laws, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 give protection against internal fraud. Understanding the effects of regulation on ethical behavior, and understanding the regulatory environment, ensures that one possesses a basic understanding of how the regulatory environment protects the public.
"This is why the market keeps going down every day - investors don't know who to trust," said Brett Trueman, an accounting professor from the University of California-Berkeley's Haas School of Business. As these things come out, it just continues to build up"(CBS MarketWatch, Hancock). The memories of the Frauds at Enron and WorldCom still haunt many investors. There have been many accounting scandals in the United States history. The Enron and the WorldCom accounting fraud affected thousands of people and it caused many changes in the rules and regulation of the corporate world. There are many similarities and differences between the two scandals and many rules and regulations have been created in order to prevent frauds like these. Enron Scandal occurred before WorldCom and despite the devastating affect of the Enron Scandal, new rules and regulations were not created in time to prevent the WorldCom Scandal. Accounting scandals like these has changed the corporate world in many ways and people are more cautious about investing because their faith had been shaken by the devastating effects of these scandals. People lost everything they had and all their life-savings. When looking at the accounting scandals in depth, it is unbelievable how much to the extent the accounting standards were broken.
Unethical accounting practices involving Enron date back to 1987. Enron’s use of creative accounting involved moving profits from one period to another to manipulate earnings. Anderson, Enron’s auditor, investigated and reported these unusual transactions to Enron’s audit committee, but failed to discuss the illegality of the acts (Girioux, 2008). Enron decided the act was immaterial and Anderson went along with their decision. At this point, the auditor’s should have reevaluated their risk assessment of Enron’s internal controls in light of how this matter was handled and the risks Enron was willing to take The history of unethical accounting practic...
After Enron’s corporate unlawful activity, and the misconduct of some other companies, such as WorldCom and Halliburton, the government and the public sector started to look for fresh methods to support ethical behavior. In light of this, the Congress of the United States passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 to address ethical and legal risks (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2013, p.14). Given the ethical lapses manifested over the past two decades, restoring trust in the free-market system and in leaders has become a challenge. Government involvements have also been helpful in regulating unethical practices. Studies have revealed that society at large consider that good ethics is good business. The capitalist system has put a lot of faith in implementing high ethical standards, including respect, integrity, honesty and citizenship. As corporate ethics have become a growing concern for society, it has become clear that enhancing social responsibility, enforcing an ethical culture, and making ethical decisions, can not only lead to business success, but also benefit our economic system in the long
Enron was on the of the most successful and innovative companies throughout the 1990s. In October of 2001, Enron admitted that its income had been vastly overstated; and its equity value was actually a couple of billion dollars less than was stated on its income statement (The Fall of Enron, 2016). Enron was forced to declare bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. The primary reasons behind the scandal at Enron was the negligence of Enron’s auditing group Arthur Andersen who helped the company to continually perpetrate the fraud (The Fall of Enron, 2016). The Enron collapse had a huge effect on present accounting regulations and rules.
The company concealed huge debts off its balance sheet, which resulted in overstating earnings. Due to an understatement of debts, the company was considered bankrupt in 2001. Shareholders lost $74 billion and a lot of jobs were lost because of the bankruptcy. The share prices of Enron started falling in 2000 and in 2001 the company revealed a huge loss. Even after all this, the company’s executives told the investors that the stock was just undervalued and they wanted their investors to keep on investing. The investors lost trust in the company as stock prices decreased, which led the company to file bankruptcy in December 2001. This shows how a lack of transparency in reporting of financial statements leads to the destruction of a company. This all happened under the watchful eye of an auditor, Arthur Andersen. After this scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was changed to keep into account the role of the auditors and how they can help in preventing such
Through an organizational culture that focused on financial greed for self, illegal accounting practices, conflicts of interest partnerships, illegal business dealings, fraud, negligence, and massive corruption at all levels, the Enron scandal help to create new laws and regulations with stiff penalties if violated (Ferrell, et al, 2013). The federal government implemented the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) (Ferrell, et al, 2013).
The 1980’s and 1990 saw further deregulations in favor of business, nevertheless it also lead to notable failures. A prime example is a series of corporate bankruptcies in the early 21st century, which involved fraudulent bookkeeping. The federal government exercised regulatory authority to promote greater scrutiny (Lai, Loi, Lei, ed, 2001).