Christina Ho, a member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, complained publicly on LinkedIn that a pair of influential senators are singling her out for audit failures at firms.
In a LinkedIn post on Oct. 17, Ho referenced a letter a week earlier from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, calling on the PCAOB to establish stricter accountability for firms with unacceptable deficiency rates. They noted that last year, the PCAOB’s review of over 200 accounting firms’ audits found that 46% had errors so significant that the auditor “had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion” about a public company’s financial statements and financial reporting.
In the letter, they pointed to a statement from a speech in September by Ho at an Institute of Internal Auditors event. “Last month, Board Member Christina Ho denied that the inspection results were a problem, instead claiming that ‘there is another side to the story,’ and that ‘PCAOB has become overzealous in its enforcement program,” falsely claiming that the inspection results “lump all deficiencies together without a qualitative assessment of their severity.’
Ho complained that the Senators’ letter accused her of appearing to be “focused on downplaying and misdirecting attention from these atrocious findings,” and of making false statements in her speech. “The letter also contains a thinly veiled threat to me (and others) by noting how Senator Warren had successfully urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2021 ‘to remove and replace all members of the PCAOB.,” she added.
“The fact that the Senators decided to single me out is troubling because I believe they are trying to stifle me from expressing views inconsistent with their false narrative,” said Ho. “I am writing to: (1) protect investors, by providing context as to why the Senators’ alarmism is unwarranted; and (2) defend myself and my views which are based on over 30 years of professional experience.”
Ho explained why the 46% deficiency rate should not be as alarming as the senators said.
“To be clear, I am not saying that a 46% deficiency rate or a 5% incorrect audit opinion rate is acceptable, it’s not,” said Ho. “What I am saying is that when you put the 46% figure cited by PCAOB and the Senators into context, the sky is not falling, and for the Senators to state that investors ‘face a coin flip when it comes to whether they should believe and trust the results of public companies’ audits,’ is unfair and unwarranted.” Since my work at the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) leading the governmentwide implementation of the first federal open data law sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), I have dedicated my career to promoting data-driven government and evidence-based policymaking, because that is how we build trust in government. The best way to protect investors is to drive audit quality, especially through innovation. However, regulating through enforcement will not be effective. Fear might extract compliance, but it will not achieve audit quality. There is a significant opportunity to promote audit quality through innovation.”
Ho said she had worked with 10 experts in the past two years to develop recommendations to the PCAOB regarding ways to promote audit quality through emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.
She took umbrage at the accusations from the senators. “As an immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen, one of my most treasured values of American democracy is freedom of speech,” said Ho. “Like many women of color, it has taken me a long time to be able to use my voice to express my views. As a public servant who contributed significantly to the advancement of federal financial transparency and accountability, I have earned the trust of many people in governments, industries, academia, and civil societies. As a PCAOB Board Member, I have applied my expertise in auditing, financial reporting, technology, and public policy to advance the PCAOB’s mission of investor protection. That is why the Senators’ letter was so stunning to me.”
She felt threatened by the senators’ letter. “U.S. Senators have tremendous influence,” said Ho. “Senators Warren and Whitehouse made it clear in their letter to the PCAOB that Senator Warren got the former PCAOB Board fired. Is this a threat for simply using my voice to speak the truth in the name of investor protection? If Congress did not want dissenting voices on the PCAOB Board, why did it pass a law that required a five-member board to govern the PCAOB? Yes, those in charge have the power to fire me without cause; the power to put my daughter’s healthcare, education, and future in jeopardy as I am a single parent; the power to deprive investors of the whole truth; and the power to sow distrust about the public company auditing profession and with it our capital markets.”
Ho pointed to her right to speak out as an American. “But why?” she wrote. “Is there anything more undemocratic than trying to silence the voice of a fellow American? Is there anything more abusive than U.S. Senators’ thinly veiled threat to take away the jobs of public servants just because they have different perspectives? Is there anything more hypocritical than Senators who claim to serve underprivileged and underrepresented populations, but do not think twice about threatening a woman of color for simply doing what she believes is right?”
She pointed out that the PCAOB is not a federal agency even though it is a federal regulator.
“I am not a political person,” she added. “I was a career executive at Treasury and served under three Treasury Secretaries during two Administrations. I took an oath to serve the American people and support the Constitution, which I take seriously every day. I agree that the PCAOB should be held accountable. Like all financial regulators, PCAOB has enormous power. However, unlike other financial regulators, we are not a federal agency. In my opinion, all regulators should be subject to congressional oversight because unchecked power is dangerous and harmful to our people and democracy. I welcome any opportunities to be held accountable for doing my job honestly and serving investors as well as the American people at large.”
Ho suggested in her IIA speech that financial restatements were a better measure of audit quality than the audit deficiency rate. “To me, the best and most direct metric that measures reporting, and audit quality is the number of public company financial restatements, and this particular metric suggests a more positive and hopeful reality,” she said.
The senators’ letter also criticized a statement by PCAOB chair Erica Williams in response to the report.
“In a statement upon the release of the report, Chair Williams commented that: ‘These inspection results point to some small signs of movement in the right direction.'”
“This is the wrong conclusion to draw from an embarrassing and intolerable set of findings,” wrote Sen. Warren and Whitehouse. “Even more troubling is the PCAOB’s attribution of these systemically high failure rates—which appears to affect virtually all auditors—to ‘more isolated incidents’ and outliers.”
Williams in turn seemed to counter Ho’s claim that restatements are a more accurate reflection of audit quality than deficiencies during a speech last week.
“These Part I.A deficiencies are relevant when assessing the quality of work done by an audit firm,” she said. “But audit quality is complex, and it escapes simplistic proxies or measures. For instance, some have suggested that audit quality can be best measured by the number of issuer restatements. Specifically, some argue that a relatively low number of restatements translates to high audit quality. I believe that view is too simplistic. A properly performed audit should identify errors before the need for restatements. At the same time, a poorly performed audit does not always mean that the financial statements are erroneous.”
Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.
The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.
Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.
The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.
“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”
The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.
“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.
“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.
Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.
Millions of Americans may see their Social Security benefits increase under a bill headed to President Joe Biden’s desk — though critics warn that the measure comes at the cost of pushing the fund further toward insolvency.
If signed by the president before the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3, the law would boost Social Security payments to more than 2 million beneficiaries, according to the Congressional Research Service. The increases — as much as $550 a month for some retirees — would be retroactive to December 2023.
Those beneficiaries are mostly those who have received foreign pensions or government workers such as police officers, firefighters and teachers who contributed to a federal or state pension plan but didn’t pay Social Security taxes.
The legislation, called the Social Security Fairness Act, eliminates two formulas that reduced benefits for these workers who receive foreign and government pensions in addition to Social Security. Those provisions, known as the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset, were enacted more than 40 years ago in response to an increase in retirees who hadn’t fully paid into Social Security and to more dual-income couples retiring.
Sponsors of the law say the old Congress over-corrected, and unfairly withheld earned benefits from retirees and their spouses.
While the White House hasn’t said whether Biden would sign the bill, it passed both chambers with bipartisan majorities: 327-75 in the House last month and 76-20 in the Senate early Saturday morning.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would hasten Social Security’s insolvency — now projected to come by 2034 — by another six months and add $196 billion to budget deficits over the next 10 years. As a result, a typical couple retiring in 2033 may see lifetime benefit cuts of $25,000, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The Senate rejected an amendment from Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, that would have pushed back the retirement age to 70. Only three senators supported the amendment.
Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.
Firms that hire experienced people do not usually get what they expect or are paying for. Here is a template to help you maximize your investment in such people.
Usually, but not always, experienced people leave a job because they are not growing in their experience. Yet many firms hire these people expecting to capitalize on their “experience.” This makes no sense and seems to be illogical. However, it happens all the time. The following is a template to assist you in getting what you need or think you are getting.
Salary level: The salary you will be paying will be the market rate. Not much higher or much lower, so regardless of what you are getting from your new employee, get over it! You will not be overpaying. You might not be getting what you think you are paying for, but you will be paying the market rate for that person.
Profile of new hire: You hired someone who has been specializing in the area that you hired them for. You also hired someone that probably had three or four jobs previously, with the last one or two (or more) in that specialization. What you do not know is the depth of their experience, how well they managed their workload or the people reporting to them, and what desire they have to grow further. If they had that desire, and they weren’t growing, then they “wasted” time in their growth trajectory trying to decide when they should leave. Further, their impression of their experience will not be the same as your expectations of their experience. Get over it!
Experience: I can almost guarantee that the new hire will not be able to perform at the level you expect them to, and my advice is to get over it. What you need to do is to evaluate their experience and figure out where they stand on the curve line of the scale that you expect. Not where you want them to be, but where they actually are. Once you figure that out, start your training and mentoring and everything else you do to move that staff person forward at the level they are at on your scale.
Getting what you are paying for: You will be not getting what you really need, but what the market has available. And whatever that is, you will likely be better off with that person than without that person, if you do not screw it up.
How to not screw it up: Do not give them work that you know they could not handle without training, supervising and being watched over closely. Start off with pretty easy work at a higher level, not the lower levels, and see how they do. Use that to guide you in where they need to go to help you. Go easy, but do it with steady forward movements. But do it slowly and deliberately. Consider your investment in a long-term relationship with that manager-level person. If they are the right person, it will become evident within a couple of months. If they’re not the right person, get rid of them quickly (see next item).
Hire carefully, but fire quickly: I know of a very successful practice that used a headhunter for staffing and was provided with a two-month guarantee, so their timetable was seven weeks. I know this because someone who left me for a higher-level position called and asked me if he could have his job back seven weeks after he left. That person was not growing with me (for various reasons that I am not getting into now) and I told him so. We liked him and explained a program that we developed to have him grow sufficiently. He immediately started to look for a job, which he got. His job was filled by us with a three-year level staff person we hired out of school and who was ready to be moved up to that position. We did not miss a beat. That shows you how “valuable” he was to us, and how invaluable he was to his next employer.
Be nice: It’s probably not all their own fault they haven’t grown. I’m sure the firms they worked at contributed immensely to that lack of growth. Be nice. Do not tell them how you feel about where you think they are on your scale of development or what your current expectations are. Just focus on using them to move you forward by helping them grow. Compliment them frequently and never disparage them. Be nice!
The past, present and future: Their lack of experience is in the past and is the present situation. Fuggeddaboudit! You hired this person so you could move your practice forward into the future. Focus on that future and getting there as easily as you can. You can do it with this person if you do not over-anticipate their ability or over-expect their output and production.
Natural tendency: A natural tendency is to be upset with them and then to use them as best you can to clean up past due work, move things out and work on slightly higher lower-level engagements. You won’t be anxious to have them train anyone so they will become lone rangers. That is not how you will be able to grow and you will doom yourself to restart with someone very similar when that person leaves “because they are not getting good experience.” And then you will start over with someone who is a mirror image of the person who just left you. Your efforts become dissipated replacing someone who left rather than concentrate on nurturing staff so they will grow and stay.
Set expectations to a lower level: When they start, do not expect more of them than is realistic. If you get more than you expect, you will be happy. If you get less than you expect, you will be miserable and probably make them, and everyone else around you, miserable. You can’t lose with lower expectations and might lose with the higher expectations. Choose can’t lose instead of might lose.
The above is not really a template, but if I added three lines to each item and asked you to write what you think or will do and perhaps include a chart (for No. 3 above), it will be a template. Figure it out for yourself, but if you believe I make sense and you are stuck in a can’t win position unless you face reality, then get over it and make the best of it to move forward. And I just showed you how to approach that.
Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] with your practice management questions or about engagements you might not be able to perform.