That’s the Enron and related scandals that led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, right? Wrong! Those were the hot topics in the news in the 1980s and 1990s with the U.K. high-profile scandals and collapse of BCCI, Robert Maxwell and Nick Leeson and Barings. BCCI was a global bank, made up of multiplying layers of entities, related to one another through an impenetrable series of holding companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, banks-within-banks, insider dealings and shareholder (nominee) relationships. With this corporate structure BCCI and shoddy record keeping, regulatory review, and audits, the complex BCCI family of entities created was able to evade ordinary legal restrictions on the movement of capital and goods as a matter of daily practice and routine. Since BCCI was a vehicle fundamentally free of government control, it was an ideal mechanism for facilitating illicit activity by others, including such activity by officials of many of the governments whose laws BCCI was breaking. Barings was Britain's oldest merchant bank. It had financed the Napoleonic wars, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Erie Canal. Barings was the Queen's bank. What really grabbed the world's attention was the fact that the failure was caused by the actions of a single trader based at a small office in Singapore – Nick Leeson. Media mogul Robert Maxwell borrowed from employees’ pension funds and from banks as he tried to keep his empire alive. Eventually it failed and pensioners lost half of their pensions. Coopers and Lybrand, now part of Pricewaterhouse Coopers was the auditor at the time, and PWC has already paid out £67m for shortcomings in auditing the accounts and has been fined a record £3.3m by a British accounting watchdog for "losing the plot". Corporate governance has had a history of reacting to scandal and abuse rather than proactively setting standards before corporate failures and losses to stakeholders crystallize. Cadbury and Turnbull ReportsThe first committee on corporate governance was set up in 1991, when Sir Adrian Cadbury was asked to chair the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. The subsequent report, known as the Cadbury Report, was published in 1992. It drew heavily on the work of the Treadway Commission in the USA. The report focused on internal controls, the need for effective audit committees and a recommendation that the roles of chairman and chief executive should be separate. Cadbury recommended that there should be a strong independent element to the board to prevent chief executives from becoming too powerful. Cadbury felt that the chairman was pivotal in allowing non-executive directors to carry out their function. “It is for chairman to make certain that their non-executive directors receive timely, relevant information tailored to their needs, that they are properly briefed on issues arising at board meetings, and that they make an effective contribution as board members in practice.” In 1999 the Turnbull Report was produced focusing on internal control. Turnbull focused on how companies manage their risks, for example the risk of corporate fraud. The key proposals, which will affect directors: · The introduction of a legislative statement of directors' duties. · The introduction of a new general duty of “promotion of the company objectives.” · A requirement that directors are pro-active in providing auditors with all the information that they require to carry out their function. Failure to comply with this requirement, or knowingly or recklessly providing a misleading, false or materially deceptive statement will constitute an offence under the new law (sounds like Section 303 of Sarbanes-Oxley). The introduction of a mandatory Operating and Financial Review which public companies and very large private companies will have to submit annually. It is envisioned that this will not only cover purely financial aspects of companies’ operations but will also include information concerning, for example, strategy and relationships with employees as well as policies on corporate governance and risk issues (title IV of Sarbanes-Oxley). Enter MagiqueIn 1997, a steering committee from Bank of Scotland, Bestfoods, John Lewis Partnership, Friends Provident, Lex Service and National Assembly for Wales met with Horwath Clark Whitehill (HCW), a UK National Partnership of accountants and business advisers, to discuss solutions for risk management and for complying with Cadbury/Turnbull. Members of this group were clients of HCW using the firm’s Galileo Audit Management solution, a system in operation since 1994. The committee focused on specific issues that needed to be addressed:
Over the next three years, HCW worked with this committee and others who joined the group, in developing a solution that would solve the current issues, and provide a framework for any future regulation that may come about – like Sarbanes-Oxley. The development resulted in a couple of iterations and Beta tests, and the first public installation in July 2000. Some of the lessons learned
included:
The steering committee also helped with the database structure, presentation of data and navigation. With risk management they wanted to see both judgmental and statistical scoring systems as well as an alignment of objectives, risks, controls, events, causes and assurances. The system needed to produce automatic alerts of significant risks and changes. And, consolidation of risks (roll ups), e.g. to business unit, process, department, region, organization was mandatory. The system had to track actions and findings at detail level along with the status and progress of tracking. Just identifying risks and controls is not enough. Companies need to have assurance that the systems to reduce and control risks are actually working. Linking Magique to the earlier product, Galileo, has given users the power to align all their internal audit work with the greatest risks, both operational and strategic, facing their businesses. With risk management it was critical
to get a buy in from business units and process owners. Hence they built a
questionnaire system, which automatically generated questionnaires from
controls with related analytical information. And the questionnaires
needed full tracking and follow up procedures. The users needed to have
multiple-choice answers with comments TodayWith tens of thousands of users
and growing, Magique is probably the largest risk management solution on
the market today. Magique is now at release 3.2. New releases are
implemented each year, with enhancements occurring frequently through the
year. The enhancements are generated as a result of feedback from our
clients through the user group meetings, the tracking database and/or user
input. FutureMany companies are now implementing
the Microsoft .NET platform with SQL servers to run their applications.
Magique is available on the Lotus Notes or Microsoft .NET platform ### About The Authors George Matyjewicz, PhD
is Global Strategist of GAP Enterprises, Ltd. and Managing Director of
D’Arcangelo Software Services, distributors of Magique in the Americas.
His dissertation “Just In Time Payments And The New Global Currency For
Conducting Business In A Global Economy” was compiled from 3+ decades
experience in the business world. He was formerly President/General
Manager of a global digital currency company with customers in 190
countries and Chief E-Commerce Officer for a global giftware company where
he experienced risk management issues first hand. He was a
Principal/Partner at a top 20 U.S. CPA/Consulting firm. He is regularly
published as an expert on global business, finance, technology and
implementation and writes and publishes E-Tailer’s Digest online and in
print, which reaches 50,000 retailers worldwide. |