WORLDCOM FRAUD CASE
Name
Institution
Introduction
Law requires that all public companies present financial statement at the end of every financial period. Financial statements presented by corporations are as results of proper book keeping and independent auditing. According to Scharff, (2005) company’s strength and survival is demonstrated by the financial position and the level of profits in competitive market structures. Scharff, (2005) states that, the qualities of financial statements or reports have been eroded by individual interests. Previous cases have left investors and regulators looking for answers like how can creative accounting be stopped, how it start and who is to blame when its revealed in their companies. Generally, these entire questions seem to be answered by putting liabilities to management for failure to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Again, failure to detect fraud can be a backlog of independent auditors for failure to apply Generally Accepted Auditing principles (GAAP) accordingly. To counteract these frauds, regulators, corporations and government have instituted various professional ethics and liability laws to reduce such cases. This paper tries to bring forth answers and the application of fraud accounting in a real company. WorldCom and Enron law firm are among recent reputed and large companies to be implicated with such accounting frauds. The paper takes a case of WorldCom.
WorldCom background
WorldCom forms the paper focus of exploring issues related to organization fraud accounting. According to Moberg & Romar, 2010, Enron Corporation demonstrated the first ever large fraud and WorldCom communication followed suit with very different situation although with similar extent. For a period of approximately two decades, WorldCom grew from a small corporation to a large telecommunication company using its traditional aggressive acquisition strategy. The company was formed in the year 1983 as Long Distanced Discount Service provider not until 1989 when it changed from private ownership to a public corporation (Moberg & Romar, 2010). Long Distanced Discount Service (LDDS) changed its name in 1985 to WorldCom after aggressively acquiring Advanced Telecommunication Corporation in 1992, Metromedia Communications Corporation And Resurgens Communication Group in 1993, IDB Communication Group in 1994 and Williams Telecommunication Group Services Operations in 1995 (Harrison, 2002). The company recorded one of the largest takeovers in history by anticipation to acquire Sprint Corporation in year 2002. In 2002, the company filed for bankruptcy protection where accounting irregularities was revealed. Through this suit file, the company disclosed all the inflated profits and capitalization of expenses. Its fraudulent financial reports had triggered much financial inefficiency. Serving the false financial statement would have made federal governments, courts or regulatory commission make wrong decisions. Similarly, investors had to invest in inefficient stock markets and inefficient stocks acquisition.
Nature of the fraud
Up until the year 2000, WorldCom the then largest internet provider and Telephone Company in the United States recorded the largest and unique accounting fraud through which Enron stated as the creative accounting. For over 15 years the company had grown significantly and became the largest corporation in the telecommunication industry through its acquisition strategies. The nature of the fraud was similar to that of Enron though of different magnitude. In 2000, the company suffered stiff competition, end user price wars, large over capacity bandwidth, and rise in mobile phone penetration in the market (Moberg & Romar, 2010). In addition, WorldCom corporation managers ignored the impact of new entrants in the market through mobile phone communication and this caused rise in local competitions which was characterized by falling rates (Moberg & Romar, 2010). Yearly profits reporting in June 2000 resulted into mix up where overstating of earnings for approximately 4 billion dollars was revealed. Since expenses are immediately subtracted from revenues and the capital expenditures are subjected to extraordinary expenditures such as depreciation and amortization, this resulted to false spreading of operating cost thus overstating profits (Kuhn & Sutton, 2006). The first man to be attached to the case was the then CEO Bernie Ebbers, who resigned from the company in late May 2002. In 1999, the group shares were trading excellently by $64 and the company was spurring for an economic boom. When the CEO resigned in 2002, the company executives declared it bankrupt and with that effect filed a bankruptcy protection to guarantee its creditors ultimate recovery. The situation unraveled that the company share prices were not worthy, there was accumulation of debts and the expenses were capitalized to assets inflating profits of the year. The accounting fraud became largest accounting fraud in the history of United States. In addition, employees and investors became culprits of indoor trading, and this was contributed by the company’s organization structure and unethical culture which triggered fraud.
Fraud whistleblowers
Fraud detection is not necessarily the duty and obligation of the obvious and recognized agents such as investors, SEC and the independent auditors; rather it is the obligation of community which includes the media, industry regulatory actors, and the company employees. Zingales et al, 2008 supports that incentives to become fraud whistle blower is attached to many influencing factors. Unfortunately, having adequate access to accounting information or rewards is noted to have attached benefit in becoming fraud detector and whistle blower. Monetary rewards and reputation rewards are among probable incentives that increase willingness to reveal accounting malpractices. Historical frauds related cases identify various whistle blowers and detectors. To arrive to the detectors of fraud, it is important to first recognize the source of information and incentives that increase detectors willingness to bring such frauds to light (Zingales et al, 2008). According to the research conducted by the Kuhn & Sutton, 2006 whistleblowers defer in their capacity to detect frauds. Essentially, the research indicate that, under legal duties and obligations, the independent auditors and the security regulators are the primary detector agents while on the other hand residual claimers (shareholders and lenders) and the analysts have a mandate to reveal some frauds. According to Kuhn & Sutton, 2006 securities regulators accounts for around seven percent while the auditors account for 10 percent. In the spectrum of corporate governance the non-residual claimers are not considered vital in blowing fraud whistles. This is opposite of reality where detectors are mostly employees, non-financial regulators and media who play a significant role in shedding light on fraud issues in public corporations.
In the case of WorldCom Corporation, European and United States industrial regulators blocked merger of Sprint Corporation and the WorldCom Corporation in 2000. Kuhn & Sutton, 2006 argues that analyst and observers in the telecommunication industry detected the stagnation of the earning ratio of WorldCom for a specific period. According to the analysts, WorldCom management manipulated all accounting information to maintain the consistency and this was a clear indicator of malpractices. Some of the approaches the company utilized included classifying expenses as capital expenditures thus would not appear in the income statement and writing down future expenses as acquired assets (Kuhn & Sutton, 2006). Also, management reclassified value acquired MCI assets as goodwill which is intangible and amortizable (Kuhn & Sutton, 2006). These techniques impacted to increasing profits and reducing key earnings ratios suggesting viability of the company and strong financial base. Basically, internal auditors and employees were not involved in WorldCom fraud detection rather independent auditors and financial analysts via the security regulators in Europe and United States were involved in unraveling the company’s accounting malpractice.
Stakeholders affected by the fraud
As indicated in the above paragraphs, financial statements users are the major beneficially of true and fair financial statements. Conversely, they become losers if malpractices or manipulation is done or when reporting disregards the Generally Accepted Accounting or Auditing Principles. Users of financial reports range from employees, government, suppliers, customers, shareholder and potential investors. The WorldCom fraud case impacted on the investors’ wealth and the employees’ job security (Ethics institute of South Africa, nd). In addition, lenders who were motivated to provide capital to the company suffered losses due to the bankruptcy (Ethics institute of South Africa, nd).
Corporation and government response
Once fraud is detected, there are various acts that proceed and comprise of initial discovery, interviewing, public record search, legal prosecution, and a forensic auditing to discover more in the documents and the individuals involved. All this triggers a number of internal and external responses. Most important is the manner the corporation reacts to frauds and the government response to minimize such cases in future. From this accounting crime, United States has spent several years in deregulating the telecommunication industries. In addition, the fraud of WorldCom and Enron Corporation triggered the government to address the situation by developing and implementing various anti-fraud laws. The first response of the government and corporation was to block the anticipated corporation merger. The intention of the fraud was basically to make rival Corporations exit competitive market environment or give up for acquisition or merger. Since the disclosure of WorldCom’s massive fraud was one of the major shocks exhibited by federal communication commission of United States, the government focused on developing appropriate laws to curb such cases in the business arena. Therefore, Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) Act 2002 was formulated and implemented into law. The Act was spurred by corporate scandal among them being Enron, Global Crossing and the WorldCom accounting frauds. As stated by Thorne et al, nd, the main provisions of the act included; increase SEC enforcement on the existing laws and regulations, banning sale of securities by key management executive and reorganize control and management as separate functions. Again the law required investors to be first provided with timely, accurate and scrutinized information before any merger or acquisition. In addition, the law required increase in penalty for securities fraud, document malpractices, and executive crimes. Again, the Act prohibited loan giving to company’s key personnel (Thorne et al, nd).
Fraud Mitigation
According to Kuhn & Sutton, 2006, the best practice that could have mitigated fraud in WorldCom was to adhere to ethical practices in accounting and reports presentation. Continuous auditing and assurance could have been a great approach in curbing such fraud. Implementing a continuous assurance tool in the company through Enterprise Resource Planning Systems could have assisted in detecting the vice in its early stage. The system provides timely, integrated, and automatic business processes that provide real time information (Kuhn & Sutton, 2006). Also Kuhn & Sutton, 2006 add that, the system provides a room for a continuous assurance and monitoring procedures other than the periodic financial auditing.
Conclusion
Organization staffs have a duty to maximize shareholders wealth and attract potential investors. Ultimately, investors are impacted largely by improper accounting and the erosion of code of ethics in financial reporting. In fact, hardly a year goes without complaints of organization fraud through erroneous, understating or overstating financial records to strengthen their financial position and attract investors. In most instances, false accounting takes place with certain hidden agenda which include; defrauding organization or strengthening organization falsely. Among them include; to hide losses, to attract lenders, to inflate share prices, attracting customers, cover fraud, to realize false bonuses, or/and to report false profits.
References
Ethics institute of South Africa. (nd) WorldCom Case Study. Brooklyn Square, 0075, South Africa. Retrieved from
Harrison, B. (2002). Does the WorldCom Bankruptcy Put My Telecom Service at Risk? Implications for WorldCom Customers and Non-Customers. Epicom Corporation. Retrieved from
Kuhn, R. & Sutton, S. G. (2006). Learning from WorldCom: Implications for Fraud Detection through Continuous Assurance Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting. Vol. 3. pp. 61–80
Moberg D. & Romar, E. (2010). WorldCom. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/worldcom.html
Scharff, M.M. (2005). Understanding WorldCom’s accounting fraud: did groupthink play a role? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. Spring
Thorne, B., Stryker, J. & Michelson, S. (nd). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002: What impact has it had on small business firms?. Stetson University. Deland, Florida.
Zingales, L., Morse, A. & Dyck, A. (2008). Who Blows the Whistle On Corporate Fraud? University of Toronto & University of Chicago, NBER, & CEPR.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]