FRC Fines Grant Thornton £650k, Ted Baker and Tullow

A ShareSoc member emailed us to give his view:

This is terrible. Why wouldn’t the FRC name the partner and the company involved, especially when Grant Thornton has been responsible for so many mishaps.

We attend meetings with FRC and are always assured things will be different. All that happens is new people takeover, warm the seats for a few years, take the money and move on.

In the other article , the former NAO leader Sir Amyas Morse , a former PWC global managing partner now moves to Mazars. It is all musical chairs and lack of Independent oversight. Frankly, the state of U.K. governance is so bad now that recovering from it is impossible

I agree.

Grant Thornton has been involved in a number of poor or defective audits, such as at Patisserie Holdings, Vimto, Globo and Salford University. The FRC claims that “We promote transparency and integrity in business” on its web site so why should we not be told the company concerned? It is surely not in the public interest to conceal the name of the company.

As for not naming the partner involved, what a lot of double think and double talk, dither and dubious logic from the FRC. Apparently the FRC thinks it would be unfair to name him as they have only fined him £20,000. Sorry chaps but a fine is a fine. Leave it to the customers to decide how best to manage this audit partner in the future. But hiding his history from other audit customers is simply wrong. It is reckless. Either don’t fine him, but give a warning; or if you fine him, then you must disclose the fact together with other relevant facts for others to judge how serious this really was.

I also agree with our correspondent’s other point. The FRC has been dominated by accountants and the FRC has acted far too often in the best interests of accountants and has failed to recognise that shareholders and other stakeholders are the ultimate users of accounts. The replacement of the FRC by ARGA may help address this problem, but culture runs deep and is difficult to change. That is one reason why ShareSoc, UKSA and I have been so keen to promote the separation of audit and consultancy services into separate firms in the big audit firms. The half baked proposal now being promoted of separate divisions within one combined audit/consultancy services firm won’t promote the radical change needed.

Ted Baker (TED) is another audit disaster. The year end stock levels had increased, but were audited and signed off at the agreed value. Those of us who have worked in retail (I once worked for Woolworths) know about stock and how likely it will be sold at the full value. The potential for stock problems are higher in fashion retailing when fashions can change quite rapidly making old stock worthless/ worth little. This is pretty basic stuff and I find it extraordinary that auditors could have got this one so wrong. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/02/ted-baker-shares-fall-fashion-chain gives more info. Shareholders has lost nearly 90% from the share price high.

Ted Baker’s auditor KPMG has been in place since 2001, and the audit was last put out to tender in 2012.

There is history of auditor problems at Ted Baker….the following is from https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/e36b6e72-6f11-46bb-bdc7-ca6d56aa5a73/Enforcement-sanctions-imposed-against-Audit-firms-and-Audit-partners_Links.pdf

Date 30 July 2018

Summary of Misconduct / breach of Relevant Requirement

KPMG LLP (Member Firm / Auditor)
Michael Francis Barradell (Audit Engagement Partner)

Ted Baker Plc and No Ordinary Designer Label Limited

KPMG: (1) Severe Reprimand; (2) Fine of £3,000,000 reduced to £2,100,000 for early settlement; (3) Costs of £112,000.

Mr Barradell: (1) Reprimand; (2) Fine of £80,000 reduced to £46,800 for early settlement.

The Misconduct arose from KPMG providing expert witness services to Ted Baker in a Commercial Court claim. This was in breach of the Ethical Standards and led to the loss of KPMG’s independence in respect of the audits. There was a risk, which occurred, that the audit team would review the work of the expert when auditing Ted Baker’s treatment of the claim in its accounts and this posed an unacceptable self-review threat. In addition, there was a self- interest threat arising from the fact that the fees for the expert engagement significantly exceeded the audit fees in the relevant years, which KPMG and Mr Barradell also failed properly to consider.

It was not alleged that KPMG or Mr Barradell in fact lacked objectivity or integrity.

Tullow (TLW) share price has also dropped sharply, from a high of £14.62 several years ago, to 59p as I write. A year ago the share price was £2. The CEO and COO have just left. The company has announced they are good leavers and will retain rights relating to long term incentive schemes and be paid their contractually entitled salary and benefits for one year.

The Oct 11 trading statement now appears to have been overly optimistic. Just two months later, the Board now has a totally different view of the outlook. Meantime, the share price has dropped from 209p to 59p, wiping out about £2bn of market cap. I cannot see why the CEO and COO are good leavers. Some might argue that the Board have better things and higher priorities to do than fight a law case with the CEO and COO. However, the Board could delegate responsibility for this to one of its number.

It is time that someone stepped up to the plate and refused to go along with the good leaver nonsense. It is time for someone to dismiss their Executives for bad performance and refuse to pay them any golden goodbyes. The Execs may sue. They may well win their case. It might cost the company a million pounds and management time to take the case to court, but even if the company lost the case in court it would win the PR battle and surely shareholders will regard such money as well spent? It would set an example for others. It is all too cosy that (some not all) fund managers collude with companies to approve overgenerous remuneration packages. Fund managers are supposed to represent the views of ultimate investors, but (many) fail to do so. This behaviour gives capitalism a bad name and needs to be sorted.

Tullow would be a good place to start!

Cliff Weight

Director ShareSoc

Disclosure : I don’t own shares in Ted Baker or Tullow.

Post Date: December 12, 2019

Group description:	Our group is interested in sustainable investing and our goal is to identify and evaluate businesses that will thrive through innovation and their transition to a ‘One Planet Economy’. By leveraging the skills of group members, we aim to deeply understand these businesses, particularly focusing on how they develop long-term valuable benefits for their customers. Each year, we plan to evaluate around seven businesses to identify opportunities where our valuation exceeds the market price. A successful outcome is defined as achieving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR), including dividends, of 10% over a decade.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Meetings are in-person in a pub near to Waterloo station in London.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are bi-monthly on a Monday from 10:45am to 4:30pm. Members are expected to also pay for their own lunch which secures the group free use of a private room in the pub. The cost is expected to be £35-40 per person, per meeting, in addition to your SIGnet membership fee.

Group description:	SIGnet Taunton is a new group with around 10 keen members at present, with a range of investment styles and experience. We welcome new members.
Meeting Type/Venue:	In person meetings at a golf club near to the centre of Taunton.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	We meet on the first Monday of every month at a golf club near to the centre of Taunton, 11am until 3pm with a lunch break.

Group description:	An online group for those who are new to investing, or have only been investing for a few years. Including topics such as: – What is a share or a bond, why and how to buy them. – Comparing funds, unit trusts, Investment trusts and exchange traded funds. – Portfolio management and diversification. – ISAs, pensions, SIPPS and how to save tax. – How terms such as PE ratio and dividend yield are used to value a share. – How to use technical analysis or charting.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Online using Zoom.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are usually held on the last Monday of the month at 7:00pm.

Group description:	An online group for those who already have some experience in investing. Covering topics such as finding companies to invest in, financial statements and ratios, valuation / margin of safety, analysis of companies and investment trusts and exchange traded funds.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Online using Zoom.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are usually held on the last Wednesday of the month at 7:00pm.

Group description:	The Equity Income Group welcomes investors of all levels of experience, from beginners to advanced. The focus of meetings is on dividend paying Investment Trusts, though there is also discussion around individual shares.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Meetings are held online.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are held every 6 weeks on a weekday between 7 and 8:30pm.

Group description:	A welcoming group open to all types of investors. Typical meeting content is to have a deep dive presentation on a topic selected by the participants and a session on buy/ sell/ key lessons learnt last month.
Meeting Type/Venue:	In person at a friendly pub close to Piccadilly Circus
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Monthly during the evening on the first Wednesday of the month.

Group description:	All levels of experience welcome. A typical meeting agenda includes: – Macro Environment – Trades: Members review existing positions and identify securities with promising TA entry patterns or setups and with suitable risk/reward. Any security, long, short, futures, options may be considered. The convener takes actual positions in trades and maintains his own detailed ledger, accurately measuring performance of individual securities and cumulative activity. Members are notified by e-mail prior to the entries or exits that are decided upon. Following each meeting an updated copy of the ledger is circulated together with the next meeting agenda. Members may wish to maintain similar ledgers of their own but there is no obligation to do so. – Technical Analysis: Techniques and systems used in trades. Members can request discussion of particular aspects of TA.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Online via Zoom
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	The first Tuesday of every month from 7 to 9pm

Group description:	Group focused on active investing, primarily in small / medium cap UK equities.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Regular Zoom meetings interspersed with occasional face to face meetings and social activities in the North West.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Monthly on Saturdays at 10am.

Group description:	Our group covers a wide spectrum of mainly stock market investing and trading from equities – which include shares, ETF’s Investment and Unit Trusts. We normally rotate the meeting chairperson (responsible for creating, with member’s help, suitable agendas) and a meeting presenter (members take it in turns to provide a 15 to 45 minute presentation on a subject of their choice). Various investing topics of interest are regularly discussed such as software, brokers, investing categories and markets and any related topics of interest.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Meetings will be returning to in-person in a private room at a West London golf club, close to an underground station. In the meantime monthly video calls and an in-between meeting email group will continue.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	In-person meetings will be held on the second Wednesday of each month in the afternoons, following a golf club one course lunch.

FRC Fines Grant Thornton £650k, Ted Baker and Tullow

Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply.