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:	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:	Following the launch of the SIGnet Technical Traders groups, it was identified that there were a number of members who use fundamental and other information as their main source of choosing companies to invest in, who would find some understanding of technical analysis helpful to identify good entry and exit points for their investments. This new SIGnet Technical Analysis in Support of Investing group is therefore being launched and we welcome members of all levels of experience to join.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Online via Zoom
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	There will be an initial Zoom meeting on Monday 29th April at 7pm to launch this group, please email info@sharesoc.org if you are interested in joining.

Group description:	A new in person group coming soon! Keep and eye on our Events page to register for the launch meeting.
Meeting Type/Venue:	In person
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	TBC

Group description:	Open to all investors / people with an interest in investing. Typical meeting will involve members talking about recent purchases, successes, failures and possible future purchases. Also with occasional visiting speakers or members making presentations on a topic of interest.
Meeting Type/Venue:	We aim to meet on the last Tuesday of each month in a private room at a pub in Playhatch. Start time 7pm with members encouraged to meet up around 6pm for a bite to eat / drink before hand, if their diaries allow.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	7pm on the last Tuesday of the month. Meetings likely to last about two hours but with informal ‘overspill’ before / after.

Group description:	This group was set up as a forum to discuss companies in detail, each company is introduced by a member and discussion may last one or two hours. Membership is by invitation only and is for experienced investors.
Meeting Type/Venue:	The group meets at a venue in Waterloo, London.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are on Tuesday mornings at two month intervals.

Group description:	Our group is a broad church that contains investors of varying age and experience. We discuss stocks and investment trusts that we have bought, sold or are interested in and the reasons behind our decisions, and try to make sense of the ever changing investment environment. Our members backgrounds are diverse and include corporate banking, engineering, teaching and the leisure industry. Discussions are robust and challenging but tend to be to be informal, and do not generally involve agendas, presentations or detailed preparation. We are a friendly and approachable group who welcome investors of all levels – we just ask that you contribute, at whatever level you can.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Our meetings are held in a very nice pub near to South Ealing tube station (Piccadilly Line), not far from Ealing Broadway (District, Central and Elizabeth Line). Group numbers permitting (and assuming members are happy to purchase food and drink from the bar), we may also have access to a private room in the pub.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	We meet every 2 months, usually on a Wednesday morning at 11am.

Group description:	An online group for those who are new to investing. Including topics such as how to buy and sell shares, unit trusts, investment trusts, exchange traded funds and diversification, tax and how to save it, pensions, portfolio management and research tools, other asset classes and basic technical analysis.
Meeting Type/Venue:	Online using Zoom.
Meeting Frequency/Timing:	Meetings are usually held on the 1st Monday of the month at 7:15pm.

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

Share this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply