On February 1, 2018, Arrow Construction Company entered into a three-year construction contract to build a bridge for a price of $8,075,000. During 2018, costs of $2,030,000 were incurred, with estimated costs of $4,030,000 yet to be incurred. Billings of $2,536,000 were sent, and cash collected was $2,280,000.

In 2019, costs incurred were $2,536,000 with remaining costs estimated to be $3,645,000. 2019 billings were $2,786,000, and $2,505,000 cash was collected. The project was completed in 2020 after additional costs of $3,830,000 were incurred. The company’s fiscal year-end is December 31. This project does not qualify for revenue recognition over time.

Required:
1. Calculate the amount of revenue and gross profit or loss to be recognized in each of the three years.
2a. Prepare journal entries for 2018 to record the transactions described (credit "various accounts" for construction costs incurred).
2b. Prepare journal entries for 2019 to record the transactions described (credit "various accounts" for construction costs incurred).
3a. Prepare a partial balance sheet to show the presentation of the project as of December 31, 2018.
3b. Prepare a partial balance sheet to show the presentation of the project as of December 31, 2019.

The unadjusted trial balance of the Dairy Plus Company as of December 31, 2017 is found on the trial balance tab. The following information is required to prepare the necessary adjusting entries for the Dairy Plus Company.

1) The balance in Prepaid insurance represents a 24-month policy that went into effect on December 1, 2017. Review the unadjusted balance in Prepaid insurance, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

2) Based on a physical count, supplies on hand total $4,050. Review the unadjusted balance in Supplies, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

3) The equipment is expected to have a 4-year useful life, and be worth about $10,000 at the end of four years. Review the unadjusted balance in Accumulated depreciation, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry to record the monthly depreciation, if any.

4) On December 26, the client paid a $13,800 60-day fee in advance, covering December 27 to February 24. Review the unadjusted balance in Unearned Consulting Revenue, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

5) Dairy Plus's employee earns $120 per day for a five-day workweek beginning on Monday and ending on Friday. The employee was last paid on Friday, December 26. Review the unadjusted balance in Salaries expense, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

6) In the second week of December, Dairy Plus agreed to provide 30 days of consulting services to a local fitness club for a fixed fee of $5,820. The terms of the initial agreement call for Dairy Plus to provide services from December 12, 2017, through January 10, 2018, or 30 days of service. The club agrees to pay Dairy Plus $5,820 on January 10, 2018, when the service period is complete. Review the unadjusted balance in Consulting revenue, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

Unadjusted

I want the general journal answers.

The unadjusted trial balance of the Home Perfection Company as of December 31, 2017 is found on the trial balance tab. The following information is required to prepare the necessary adjusting entries for the Home Perfection Company.

• 1) The balance in Prepaid insurance represents a 24-month policy that went into effect on December 1, 2017. Review the unadjusted balance in Prepaid insurance, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

• 2) Based on a physical count, supplies on hand total $4,500. Review the unadjusted balance in Supplies, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

• 3) The equipment is expected to have a 4-year useful life, and be worth about $9,000 at the end of four years. Review the unadjusted balance in Accumulated depreciation, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry to record the monthly depreciation, if any.

• 4) On December 26, the client paid a $8,400 60-day fee in advance, covering December 27 to February 24. Review the unadjusted balance in Unearned Consulting Revenue, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

• 5) Home Perfection's employee earns $150 per day for a five-day workweek beginning on Monday and ending on Friday. The employee was last paid on Friday, December 26. Review the unadjusted balance in Salaries expense, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

• 6) In the second week of December, Home Perfection agreed to provide 30 days of consulting services to a local fitness club for a fixed fee of $3,660. The terms of the initial agreement call for Home Perfection to provide services from December 12, 2017, through January 10, 2018, or 30 days of service. The club agrees to pay Home Perfection $3,660 on January 10, 2018, when the service period is complete. Review the unadjusted balance in Consulting revenue, and prepare the necessary adjusting entry, if any.

U.S. Foodservice: A Case Study in Fraud and Forensic Accounting

Maria H. Sanchez

Christopher P. Agoglia^[1]

Ahold’s audit committee ordered investigations at the parent company and at 17 Ahold operating and real estate companies to look for accounting errors, irregularities, and other issues as well as assess internal controls and management integrity (Ahold, 2003a).   After a forensic audit, Ahold eventually reported that the overstatement of U.S. Foodservice’s earnings was more than $850 million (Ball, 2003). A large component of the overstatement resulted from improper recognition of promotional allowances. Several U.S. Foodservice employees and vendors either admitted to or were convicted of playing a role in the fraud. In this case, students will gain insights into the proper accounting for and disclosure of promotional allowances and also the risk of over-reliance on third party confirmation as an audit procedure. Students will also distinguish between a financial statement audit and a forensic audit.

Accounting for cash consideration from vendor rebates, also known as “promotional allowances,” was at the center of the U.S. Foodservice’s earnings restatement. Rebates of this type are common in the grocery and foodservice industries and are frequently material in amount, sometimes exceeding 5% of sales. Vendors can offer rebates to customers in exchange for favorable display space in stores, or they may give volume rebates to provide an incentive to a retailer to increase sales of the vendor’s products, with the rebate percentage increasing as the retailer’s sales volume increases. However, these rebates are problematic in several respects. At the time of U.S. Foodservice’s accounting irregularities, there was no standardized accounting treatment of these rebates. Companies have accounted for them differently, and there have been differing levels of disclosure regarding their amounts. The investigation at U.S. Foodservice revealed that determination of rebates receivable can be problematic.

WHAT HAPPENED AT U.S. FOODSERVICE

            U.S. Foodservice was acquired by Ahold in 2000. Prior to this, U.S. Foodservice used KPMG as their auditor. After the acquisition, U.S. Foodservice was audited by Deloitte &

Touche, Ahold’s auditor. During their 2002 audit of Ahold’s financial statements, as part of their confirmation process at U.S. Foodservice, Deloitte discovered that certain accrued vendor allowance receivable balances were overstated. Deloitte uncovered a series of accounting irregularities at U.S. Foodservice and other Ahold subsidiaries and also improper accounting for certain of Ahold’s joint ventures (Parker, 2003). Deloitte immediately withdrew their audit opinions for 2000 and 2001 and suspended work on the 2002 audit.  

            There appeared to be a confluence of economic conditions, managerial “inventiveness,” and failures of internal controls that led to the accounting irregularities at U.S. Foodservice.

Company sales for the year 2002 had been decreasing. In last quarter of 2002, upper management held a conference call with its divisional managers advising them that their annual bonuses were at risk if sales were not boosted. According to testimony provided by those inside the company, in that conference call, the company’s chief operating officer described an

“initiative” that would increase the likelihood of managers receiving their bonuses and help the company achieve its sales target for the year. Quite simply, the strategy was to order large amounts of inventory and immediately recognize the vendor rebates that accompanied them. The rebates were in many cases substantial and, according to some sources, ranged from 8.5% to 46% of the purchase price. Divisional managers stated that they were told by upper management that if they did not place orders for additional inventory, then it would be done for them. These managers reported that it was made clear that if they did not go along with the “initiative,” not only were their bonuses in jeopardy, but perhaps their jobs were as well (Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003).

Soon the warehouses at U.S. Foodservice were overflowing with inventory of foodrelated items and paper products. The amount of inventory the company purchased was so large that it had to rent additional space and refrigerator trucks to store it. As purchases increased, the vendor rebates to which U.S. Foodservice were entitled also increased. Supplier rebates increased from approximately $125 million in 2000 to about $700 million in 2003 (Bray, 2006). These rebates were recognized immediately as products were purchased in an attempt to boost earnings. The excess inventory was so immense, however, that even after the announcement of the earnings restatement, it was questionable whether the company would be able to sell it. In an effort to unload the massive amount of product in its warehouses, the company had to reduce its selling price below its original cost in some cases (Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003).

During the audit of U.S. Foodservice, third party confirmations of rebates receivable had been provided by the vendors’ salespeople, not their accounting departments. According to complaints filed by the SEC, employees at U.S. Foodservice urged their vendors to complete and return to the auditors false confirmation letters with dollar amounts intentionally overstated, sometimes by as much as millions of dollars. Some vendors were pressured, some were provided with secret “side letters” assuring the vendors that they did not owe the amounts listed on the confirmations (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2006b).

In a span of several months, the “initiative” proposed by the company’s COO unraveled. Rather than helping the company out of its economic doldrums, the scheme instead resulted in earnings restatements, plunging stock price, several high-level managers losing their jobs, regulatory investigation of the company’s accounting practices, and allegations that officials in both the U.S. and Dutch offices had criminal intent to deceive and defraud the investing public

(Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003). In July 2003, Dutch officials raided Ahold’s headquarters and began a criminal probe (Sterling, 2003). One year later, in July 2004, U.S. officials announced that two former U.S. Foodservice executives were being formally charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and making false filings. Prosecutors also announced at the same time that two other U.S. Foodservice managers had admitted to their roles in the same alleged scheme of overstating earnings (McClam, 2004).

THE FORENSIC AUDIT

After the irregularities were uncovered by the external auditors, a criminal investigation was launched by the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, Ahold appointed a team of forensic accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers to work alongside the SEC. The forensic accountants had to sort through tens of thousands of documents (Datson, 2003). A U.S. federal grand jury issued subpoenas for Ahold documents for as far back as January 1, 1999 (Buckley and Chaffin, 2003).  

The forensic audit revealed fraud at U.S. Foodservice totaling over $850 million, with over $100 relating to 2000, over $200 million relating to 2001 and the rest relating to 2002. The fraud related to fictitious and/or overstated vendor allowance receivables and improper or premature recognition of vendor allowances and an understatement of cost of goods sold (Ahold, 2003a). Numerous U.S. Foodservice employees were involved in the fraud, and it was discovered that the fraud went back as far as 2000. U.S. Foodservice employees were found to have been using inflated recognition rates for vendor allowances and intentionally misapplying both Dutch and U.S. GAAP. Deloitte’s audit testing using third party confirmations failed to detect management’s misrepresentation of the reduction in cost of sales resulting from these manufacturer rebates (Bryan-Low, 2003).

The probe of U.S. Foodservice expanded to investigate several of the company’s suppliers, including Sara Lee and ConAgra Foods, to determine if they might have been complicit in U.S. Foodservice’s intent to misrepresent certain financial statement assertions. The investigation revealed that U.S. Foodservice employees asked salespeople at their vendors to sign false documentation for Deloitte and that some vendors cooperated with this fraudulent scheme. Three salespeople at Sara Lee admitted that they had signed off on, and forwarded to

U.S. Foodservice’s external auditors, erroneous documents that reflected inflated amounts owed to the company by Sara Lee (Callahan, 2003b). Similarly, at ConAgra Foods two salespeople also admitted to signing off on inflated amounts for manufacturer rebates due to U.S. Foodservice. ConAgra Foods claimed, however, that the erroneous confirmation amounts were discovered and that U.S. Foodservice’s external auditor was notified before news of the accounting scandal broke (Callahan, 2003a). The forensic examination at U.S. Foodservice also revealed numerous weaknesses in internal controls, including failure to properly record and track vendor allowances, inadequate accounting and financial reporting systems for vendor allowances, and failure to follow GAAP (Ahold, 2003a).

The investigation revealed fraud at not only U.S. Foodservice, but also at several other Ahold subsidiaries and the parent company. It was discovered at one subsidiary that fictitious invoices were used to conceal payments, and in some cases, payments were improperly capitalized rather than expensed. It was also discovered that the consolidation of certain joint ventures into Ahold’s financial statements was in error and that secret side letters had been concealed from Ahold’s audit committee and external auditors. Further, accounting irregularities and earnings management were uncovered at other subsidiaries and at the parent company.

Overall, more than 750 separate items related to internal control weaknesses and accounting issues were identified at Ahold and its subsidiaries (Ahold, 2003a). This extensive forensic examination led to a lengthy delay in the announcement of 2002 audited earnings numbers. Ahold’s 2002 annual report was released October of 2003, which included restatements for the years 2000 and 2001.

The total fraud at Ahold was revealed to be over $1 billion. Of this, approximately $856 million related to U.S. Foodservice. Upon conclusion of the forensic investigation, Ahold announced the creation of a task force reporting to the audit committee to address the internal control weaknesses and improper accounting practices uncovered during the investigation. (Ahold, 2003b). Ahold announced in their 2002 annual report that the internal audit department would now report directly to the CEO and the audit committee, rather than solely to the CEO, as was the case previously (Ahold, 2002a).

According to press releases from Ahold, after the accounting scandal, U.S. Foodservice made “substantial improvements in the company’s financial systems and controls, as well as its financial organization, to strengthen financial monitoring and reporting” (Ahold, 2004). They also established a new office of governance, ethics and compliance.

LESSONS LEARNED: AUDIT CONFIRMATIONS

            In designing the tests to be performed during an audit, an auditor must obtain adequate assurance to address audit risk. The greater the risk of a particular financial statement assertion (e.g., the existence and amount of vendor rebates), the more evidence an auditor should gather to support the assertion. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 67 states that, “confirmation is the process of obtaining and evaluating a direct communication from a third party in response to a request for information about a particular item affecting financial statement assertions” (AICPA, 1992, SAS 67.06, AU 330). According to SAS No. 67, confirmation from an independent source is generally viewed as having greater reliability than evidence obtained solely from client personnel. Confirmation with a third party helps the auditor assess the financial statement assertions with respect to all five of management’s assertions: existence or occurrence, completeness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, and presentation and disclosure. The auditor may design a third party confirmation to address any one or more of these assertions (AICPA, 1992). However, existence is usually the primary assertion addressed by confirmation of receivables.

Even though evidence obtained by a third party confirmation is generally viewed as being more reliable than evidence provided by the entity being audited, SAS No. 67 cautions that an auditor should maintain a healthy level of professional skepticism. The auditor should consider information from prior years’ audits and audits of similar entities. Further, an auditor has an obligation to understand the arrangements and transactions between the audit client and the third party so that the appropriate confirmation request can be designed. SAS No. 67 states that “[i]f information about the respondent’s competence, knowledge, motivation, ability, or willingness to respond, or about the respondent’s objectivity and freedom from bias with respect to the audited entity comes to the auditor’s attention, the auditor should consider the effects of such

information on designing the confirmation request and evaluating the results, including determining whether other procedures are necessary” (AICPA, 2002, SAS 67.27). The statement allows for the possibility that the party responding to the confirmation may not be completely objective or free from bias and requires the auditor to use other evidence to confirm financial statement assertions in such cases (AICPA, 1992).

Confirming accounts receivable is a generally accepted auditing procedure and is required unless the amount involved is immaterial, a confirmation would be ineffective, or if the auditor can substantially reduce the level of audit risk of the financial statement assertion through the use of other substantive and analytical tests. Accounts receivable, for the purpose of SAS No. 67 (AU 330), represent claims against customers that have arisen in the normal course of business and loans held by financial institutions (AICPA, 1992). The Statement does not specifically address confirming a receivable that arises when a vendor owes a rebate to a reseller, a situation that differs substantially from the typical trade accounts receivable from a customer. Confirming vendor rebate receivables give rise to different risks that likely were not envisioned when the Statement was adopted in 1992.

In adopting SAS No. 67, two (of the seventeen) Board members, while assenting to the Statement, expressed a reservation that the language used in the Statement usurped the freedom of the auditor in exercising professional judgment in how best to confirm accounts receivable and that the language might also lead auditors to place undue reliance on third party confirmation when circumstances might suggest that the auditor choose a more effective test (AICPA, 1992). With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the auditors of U.S. Foodservice could have, and should have, designed a more “effective test,” one that would have helped overcome the inherent weakness that existed in this situation where parties providing the confirmation may have either been uninformed about the existence and/or amount owed to the retailer or may have had a vested interest to overstate the amount that was owed to U.S. Foodservice. While some practitioner literature has made reference to biases of confirmation respondents (e.g., Simunic 1996), scant attention has been given to this particular concern regarding responses to auditor confirmations by vendors’ sales personnel.

THE AFTERMATH

In 2004, Timothy J. Lee and William F. Carter, both former purchasing executives for U.S. Foodservice, pleaded guilty to participating in the scheme and to conspiring with suppliers to mislead the company’s auditors. They later agreed to pay approximately $300,000 in civil penalties (Reuters, 2005).

More than a dozen U.S. Foodservice vendors pleaded guilty from 2003 to 2006 to criminal charges related to the fraud, admitting that they submitted false confirmations to the auditors (Bloomberg, 2006). Many other U.S. Foodservice employees and vendors have faced civil charges from the SEC, and most have agreed to pay fines without admitting guilt (Sterling, 2007).

In 2009, the SEC dropped the charges against the two former KPMG auditors charged with having engaged in improper conduct during the 1999 audit of U.S. Foodservice (SEC, 2009).

The auditors had been charged by the SEC in 2006 (SEC, 2006b).

PLEASE WRITE A CONCLUTION FOR THIS CASE STUDY RELATED TO THE AUDIT FAILURE.

U.S. Foodservice: A Case Study in Fraud and Forensic Accounting

Maria H. Sanchez

Christopher P. Agoglia^[1]

Ahold’s audit committee ordered investigations at the parent company and at 17 Ahold operating and real estate companies to look for accounting errors, irregularities, and other issues as well as assess internal controls and management integrity (Ahold, 2003a).   After a forensic audit, Ahold eventually reported that the overstatement of U.S. Foodservice’s earnings was more than $850 million (Ball, 2003). A large component of the overstatement resulted from improper recognition of promotional allowances. Several U.S. Foodservice employees and vendors either admitted to or were convicted of playing a role in the fraud. In this case, students will gain insights into the proper accounting for and disclosure of promotional allowances and also the risk of over-reliance on third party confirmation as an audit procedure. Students will also distinguish between a financial statement audit and a forensic audit.

Accounting for cash consideration from vendor rebates, also known as “promotional allowances,” was at the center of the U.S. Foodservice’s earnings restatement. Rebates of this type are common in the grocery and foodservice industries and are frequently material in amount, sometimes exceeding 5% of sales. Vendors can offer rebates to customers in exchange for favorable display space in stores, or they may give volume rebates to provide an incentive to a retailer to increase sales of the vendor’s products, with the rebate percentage increasing as the retailer’s sales volume increases. However, these rebates are problematic in several respects. At the time of U.S. Foodservice’s accounting irregularities, there was no standardized accounting treatment of these rebates. Companies have accounted for them differently, and there have been differing levels of disclosure regarding their amounts. The investigation at U.S. Foodservice revealed that determination of rebates receivable can be problematic.

WHAT HAPPENED AT U.S. FOODSERVICE

            U.S. Foodservice was acquired by Ahold in 2000. Prior to this, U.S. Foodservice used KPMG as their auditor. After the acquisition, U.S. Foodservice was audited by Deloitte &

Touche, Ahold’s auditor. During their 2002 audit of Ahold’s financial statements, as part of their confirmation process at U.S. Foodservice, Deloitte discovered that certain accrued vendor allowance receivable balances were overstated. Deloitte uncovered a series of accounting irregularities at U.S. Foodservice and other Ahold subsidiaries and also improper accounting for certain of Ahold’s joint ventures (Parker, 2003). Deloitte immediately withdrew their audit opinions for 2000 and 2001 and suspended work on the 2002 audit.  

            There appeared to be a confluence of economic conditions, managerial “inventiveness,” and failures of internal controls that led to the accounting irregularities at U.S. Foodservice.

Company sales for the year 2002 had been decreasing. In last quarter of 2002, upper management held a conference call with its divisional managers advising them that their annual bonuses were at risk if sales were not boosted. According to testimony provided by those inside the company, in that conference call, the company’s chief operating officer described an

“initiative” that would increase the likelihood of managers receiving their bonuses and help the company achieve its sales target for the year. Quite simply, the strategy was to order large amounts of inventory and immediately recognize the vendor rebates that accompanied them. The rebates were in many cases substantial and, according to some sources, ranged from 8.5% to 46% of the purchase price. Divisional managers stated that they were told by upper management that if they did not place orders for additional inventory, then it would be done for them. These managers reported that it was made clear that if they did not go along with the “initiative,” not only were their bonuses in jeopardy, but perhaps their jobs were as well (Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003).

Soon the warehouses at U.S. Foodservice were overflowing with inventory of foodrelated items and paper products. The amount of inventory the company purchased was so large that it had to rent additional space and refrigerator trucks to store it. As purchases increased, the vendor rebates to which U.S. Foodservice were entitled also increased. Supplier rebates increased from approximately $125 million in 2000 to about $700 million in 2003 (Bray, 2006). These rebates were recognized immediately as products were purchased in an attempt to boost earnings. The excess inventory was so immense, however, that even after the announcement of the earnings restatement, it was questionable whether the company would be able to sell it. In an effort to unload the massive amount of product in its warehouses, the company had to reduce its selling price below its original cost in some cases (Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003).

During the audit of U.S. Foodservice, third party confirmations of rebates receivable had been provided by the vendors’ salespeople, not their accounting departments. According to complaints filed by the SEC, employees at U.S. Foodservice urged their vendors to complete and return to the auditors false confirmation letters with dollar amounts intentionally overstated, sometimes by as much as millions of dollars. Some vendors were pressured, some were provided with secret “side letters” assuring the vendors that they did not owe the amounts listed on the confirmations (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2006b).

In a span of several months, the “initiative” proposed by the company’s COO unraveled. Rather than helping the company out of its economic doldrums, the scheme instead resulted in earnings restatements, plunging stock price, several high-level managers losing their jobs, regulatory investigation of the company’s accounting practices, and allegations that officials in both the U.S. and Dutch offices had criminal intent to deceive and defraud the investing public

(Stecklow, Raghavan, & Ball, 2003). In July 2003, Dutch officials raided Ahold’s headquarters and began a criminal probe (Sterling, 2003). One year later, in July 2004, U.S. officials announced that two former U.S. Foodservice executives were being formally charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and making false filings. Prosecutors also announced at the same time that two other U.S. Foodservice managers had admitted to their roles in the same alleged scheme of overstating earnings (McClam, 2004).

THE FORENSIC AUDIT

After the irregularities were uncovered by the external auditors, a criminal investigation was launched by the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, Ahold appointed a team of forensic accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers to work alongside the SEC. The forensic accountants had to sort through tens of thousands of documents (Datson, 2003). A U.S. federal grand jury issued subpoenas for Ahold documents for as far back as January 1, 1999 (Buckley and Chaffin, 2003).  

The forensic audit revealed fraud at U.S. Foodservice totaling over $850 million, with over $100 relating to 2000, over $200 million relating to 2001 and the rest relating to 2002. The fraud related to fictitious and/or overstated vendor allowance receivables and improper or premature recognition of vendor allowances and an understatement of cost of goods sold (Ahold, 2003a). Numerous U.S. Foodservice employees were involved in the fraud, and it was discovered that the fraud went back as far as 2000. U.S. Foodservice employees were found to have been using inflated recognition rates for vendor allowances and intentionally misapplying both Dutch and U.S. GAAP. Deloitte’s audit testing using third party confirmations failed to detect management’s misrepresentation of the reduction in cost of sales resulting from these manufacturer rebates (Bryan-Low, 2003).

The probe of U.S. Foodservice expanded to investigate several of the company’s suppliers, including Sara Lee and ConAgra Foods, to determine if they might have been complicit in U.S. Foodservice’s intent to misrepresent certain financial statement assertions. The investigation revealed that U.S. Foodservice employees asked salespeople at their vendors to sign false documentation for Deloitte and that some vendors cooperated with this fraudulent scheme. Three salespeople at Sara Lee admitted that they had signed off on, and forwarded to

U.S. Foodservice’s external auditors, erroneous documents that reflected inflated amounts owed to the company by Sara Lee (Callahan, 2003b). Similarly, at ConAgra Foods two salespeople also admitted to signing off on inflated amounts for manufacturer rebates due to U.S. Foodservice. ConAgra Foods claimed, however, that the erroneous confirmation amounts were discovered and that U.S. Foodservice’s external auditor was notified before news of the accounting scandal broke (Callahan, 2003a). The forensic examination at U.S. Foodservice also revealed numerous weaknesses in internal controls, including failure to properly record and track vendor allowances, inadequate accounting and financial reporting systems for vendor allowances, and failure to follow GAAP (Ahold, 2003a).

The investigation revealed fraud at not only U.S. Foodservice, but also at several other Ahold subsidiaries and the parent company. It was discovered at one subsidiary that fictitious invoices were used to conceal payments, and in some cases, payments were improperly capitalized rather than expensed. It was also discovered that the consolidation of certain joint ventures into Ahold’s financial statements was in error and that secret side letters had been concealed from Ahold’s audit committee and external auditors. Further, accounting irregularities and earnings management were uncovered at other subsidiaries and at the parent company.

Overall, more than 750 separate items related to internal control weaknesses and accounting issues were identified at Ahold and its subsidiaries (Ahold, 2003a). This extensive forensic examination led to a lengthy delay in the announcement of 2002 audited earnings numbers. Ahold’s 2002 annual report was released October of 2003, which included restatements for the years 2000 and 2001.

The total fraud at Ahold was revealed to be over $1 billion. Of this, approximately $856 million related to U.S. Foodservice. Upon conclusion of the forensic investigation, Ahold announced the creation of a task force reporting to the audit committee to address the internal control weaknesses and improper accounting practices uncovered during the investigation. (Ahold, 2003b). Ahold announced in their 2002 annual report that the internal audit department would now report directly to the CEO and the audit committee, rather than solely to the CEO, as was the case previously (Ahold, 2002a).

According to press releases from Ahold, after the accounting scandal, U.S. Foodservice made “substantial improvements in the company’s financial systems and controls, as well as its financial organization, to strengthen financial monitoring and reporting” (Ahold, 2004). They also established a new office of governance, ethics and compliance.

LESSONS LEARNED: AUDIT CONFIRMATIONS

            In designing the tests to be performed during an audit, an auditor must obtain adequate assurance to address audit risk. The greater the risk of a particular financial statement assertion (e.g., the existence and amount of vendor rebates), the more evidence an auditor should gather to support the assertion. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 67 states that, “confirmation is the process of obtaining and evaluating a direct communication from a third party in response to a request for information about a particular item affecting financial statement assertions” (AICPA, 1992, SAS 67.06, AU 330). According to SAS No. 67, confirmation from an independent source is generally viewed as having greater reliability than evidence obtained solely from client personnel. Confirmation with a third party helps the auditor assess the financial statement assertions with respect to all five of management’s assertions: existence or occurrence, completeness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, and presentation and disclosure. The auditor may design a third party confirmation to address any one or more of these assertions (AICPA, 1992). However, existence is usually the primary assertion addressed by confirmation of receivables.

Even though evidence obtained by a third party confirmation is generally viewed as being more reliable than evidence provided by the entity being audited, SAS No. 67 cautions that an auditor should maintain a healthy level of professional skepticism. The auditor should consider information from prior years’ audits and audits of similar entities. Further, an auditor has an obligation to understand the arrangements and transactions between the audit client and the third party so that the appropriate confirmation request can be designed. SAS No. 67 states that “[i]f information about the respondent’s competence, knowledge, motivation, ability, or willingness to respond, or about the respondent’s objectivity and freedom from bias with respect to the audited entity comes to the auditor’s attention, the auditor should consider the effects of such

information on designing the confirmation request and evaluating the results, including determining whether other procedures are necessary” (AICPA, 2002, SAS 67.27). The statement allows for the possibility that the party responding to the confirmation may not be completely objective or free from bias and requires the auditor to use other evidence to confirm financial statement assertions in such cases (AICPA, 1992).

Confirming accounts receivable is a generally accepted auditing procedure and is required unless the amount involved is immaterial, a confirmation would be ineffective, or if the auditor can substantially reduce the level of audit risk of the financial statement assertion through the use of other substantive and analytical tests. Accounts receivable, for the purpose of SAS No. 67 (AU 330), represent claims against customers that have arisen in the normal course of business and loans held by financial institutions (AICPA, 1992). The Statement does not specifically address confirming a receivable that arises when a vendor owes a rebate to a reseller, a situation that differs substantially from the typical trade accounts receivable from a customer. Confirming vendor rebate receivables give rise to different risks that likely were not envisioned when the Statement was adopted in 1992.

In adopting SAS No. 67, two (of the seventeen) Board members, while assenting to the Statement, expressed a reservation that the language used in the Statement usurped the freedom of the auditor in exercising professional judgment in how best to confirm accounts receivable and that the language might also lead auditors to place undue reliance on third party confirmation when circumstances might suggest that the auditor choose a more effective test (AICPA, 1992). With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the auditors of U.S. Foodservice could have, and should have, designed a more “effective test,” one that would have helped overcome the inherent weakness that existed in this situation where parties providing the confirmation may have either been uninformed about the existence and/or amount owed to the retailer or may have had a vested interest to overstate the amount that was owed to U.S. Foodservice. While some practitioner literature has made reference to biases of confirmation respondents (e.g., Simunic 1996), scant attention has been given to this particular concern regarding responses to auditor confirmations by vendors’ sales personnel.

THE AFTERMATH

In 2004, Timothy J. Lee and William F. Carter, both former purchasing executives for U.S. Foodservice, pleaded guilty to participating in the scheme and to conspiring with suppliers to mislead the company’s auditors. They later agreed to pay approximately $300,000 in civil penalties (Reuters, 2005).

More than a dozen U.S. Foodservice vendors pleaded guilty from 2003 to 2006 to criminal charges related to the fraud, admitting that they submitted false confirmations to the auditors (Bloomberg, 2006). Many other U.S. Foodservice employees and vendors have faced civil charges from the SEC, and most have agreed to pay fines without admitting guilt (Sterling, 2007).

In 2009, the SEC dropped the charges against the two former KPMG auditors charged with having engaged in improper conduct during the 1999 audit of U.S. Foodservice (SEC, 2009).

The auditors had been charged by the SEC in 2006 (SEC, 2006b).

read the above REAL WORLD AUDITING case study and provide an overview of the facts of the case (in your own words);  discuss the theoretical principles applicable to the case.

Scenario

Universal Bank is a relatively young bank growing rapidly in terms of overall customer acquisition. The majority of these customers are liability customers (depositors) with varying sizes of relationship with the bank. The customer base of asset customers (borrowers) is quite small, and the bank is interested in expanding this base rapidly to bring in more loan business. In particular, it wants to explore ways of converting its liability customers to personal loan customers (while retaining them as depositors).

A campaign that the bank ran last year for liability customers showed a healthy conversion rate of over 9% success. This has encouraged the retail marketing department to devise smarter campaigns with better target marketing. The goal is to use k-NN to predict whether a new customer will accept a loan offer. This will serve as the basis for the design of a new campaign.

The dataset UniversalBank.csv below contains data on 5000 customers. The data include customer demographic information (age, income, etc.), the customer’s relationship with the bank (mortgage, securities account, etc.), and the customer response to the last personal loan campaign (Personal Loan). Among these 5000 customers, only 480 (= 9.6%) accepted the personal loan that was offered to them in the earlier campaign.

• UniversalBank.csv

With all this information in mind and the use of R, your job is to:

• Partition the dataset into 60% training and 40% validation sets considering the information on the following customer:
  Age = 40, Experience = 10, Income = 84, Family = 2, CCAvg = 2, Education_1 = 0, Education_2 = 1, Education_3 = 0, Mortgage = 0, Securities Account = 0, CD Account = 0, Online = 1, and Credit Card = 1.

• Perform a k-NN classification with all predictors except ID and ZIP code using k = 1. Remember to transform categorical predictors with more than two categories into dummy variables first.

• Specify the success class as 1 (loan acceptance), and use the default cutoff value of 0.5. How would this customer be classified?

• Tell me, what is a choice of k that balances between overfitting and ignoring the predictor information?

• Show the confusion matrix for the validation data that results from using the best k. Then,

• Consider the following customer:
  Age = 40, Experience = 10, Income = 84, Family = 2, CCAvg = 2, Education_1 = 0, Education_2 = 1, Education_3 = 0, Mortgage = 0, Securities Account = 0, CD Account = 0, Online = 1 and Credit Card = 1.

• Classify the above customer using the best k.

• Repartition the data, this time into training, validation, and test sets (50% : 30% : 20%).

• Apply the k-NN method with the k chosen above.

• Compare the confusion matrix of the test set with that of the training and validation sets.

• Comment on the differences and their reason.

The consumer's original monthly income is $4,000. Her income increases by 25%, and, a result, her demand for Good X changes from 300 to 350 units per month.

Based on this information,

If the value of the own-price elasticity of demand is infinite (in absolute value),

Which of the following statements best describes the relationship between short-run supply elasticity and long-run supply elasticity?

The own price elasticity of demand for Good Y is -1.75. Management reduces the price of Good Y by 5% to stimulate demand.

As a result of this "pricing strategy,"

List three specific things that would cause the demand for ride-share services (i.e., Uber or Lyft) to shift. Use three different categories (all 5 listed below) of demand-shifters in your answer.

• Changes in Income
  • Normal good – a good for which a positive relationship exists between changes in consumer income and changes in demand
  • Inferior good – a good for which an inverse relationship exists between changes in consumer income and changes in demand
• Prices of related goods
  • Substitutes – goods for which a positive relationship exists between changes in the price of one and changes in demand for the other
  • Complements – goods for which an inverse relationship exists between changes in the price of one and changes in demand for the other
• Changes in Consumer Tastes
  • Fads
  • Changes in quality
• Changes in Consumer Expectations
  • Changes in Price Expectations
  • Changes in Income Expectations
• The size of the market