cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Finances

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-12-2008, 08:57 PM   #1
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Finance Industry Accounting Shenanigans

I work for an agency that grants me access to the operations of much of the financial industry. I see reports (not made to the general public) of certain "holding" companies that have, say $1K in revenue and $30M in expenses. It's obvious that the entity exists only to shield the losses of its subsidiaries, so those subsidiaries can pad their annual and quarterly reports. And its not like these are isolated incidents either.

These kind of shenanigans send bad signals to investors, creating bubbles and the like. When the SEC increases regulations to create more transparency, the industry will devise new tactics. A regulation policy is like a security policy; it needs to constantly updated to fend off new viruses.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:05 PM   #2
TripletDaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
TripletDaddy can only hope to improve
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
I work for an agency that grants me access to the operations of much of the financial industry. I see reports (not made to the general public) of certain "holding" companies that have, say $1K in revenue and $30M in expenses. It's obvious that the entity exists only to shield the losses of its subsidiaries, so those subsidiaries can pad their annual and quarterly reports. And its not like these are isolated incidents either.

These kind of shenanigans send bad signals to investors, creating bubbles and the like. When the SEC increases regulations to create more transparency, the industry will devise new tactics. A regulation policy is like a security policy; it needs to constantly updated to fend off new viruses.
A holding company exists to own shares of outstanding stock. It does not shelter losses.

I think you are referring to "shells," which exist for structural purposes and do shelter losses.

However, all gains and losses for subs would roll up to the consolidated return, so not sure what you mean about shells bilking the investing public.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

"Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte
TripletDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:14 PM   #3
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
A holding company exists to own shares of outstanding stock. It does not shelter losses.

I think you are referring to "shells," which exist for structural purposes and do shelter losses.

However, all gains and losses for subs would roll up to the consolidated return, so not sure what you mean about shells bilking the investing public.
Signed,
Enron
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:18 PM   #4
TripletDaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
TripletDaddy can only hope to improve
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
Signed,
Enron
You have really been into these Jim Rome resets lately. I am glad because you are trying to mix things up a bit.

This wasnt one of your better ones because Enron is neither a holding company nor a shell.

Your God one was really funny, though.

Another recent classic line..."Spencer, let it go." That was good stuff.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

"Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte
TripletDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:28 PM   #5
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
A holding company exists to own shares of outstanding stock. It does not shelter losses.

I think you are referring to "shells," which exist for structural purposes and do shelter losses.

However, all gains and losses for subs would roll up to the consolidated return, so not sure what you mean about shells bilking the investing public.
so is it normal for holding companies to have almost no revenue and billions of dollars in expenses?
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 09:43 PM   #6
TripletDaddy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
TripletDaddy can only hope to improve
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinoCoug View Post
so is it normal for holding companies to have almost no revenue and billions of dollars in expenses?
I would say that it would be inefficient. I don't know if it is abnormal.

Again, are you sure you want to be using the term "holding company?" The situation you describe in your first post has nothing really to do with holding companies. Or even subsidiaries. I think you are talking about companies that use special purpose entities to shell-game losses and shelter tax.

Enron was not engaging in shady deals with subs. Enron had shady dealings with SPEs (specifically, limited partnerships in the case of Enron).

Also, in your hypo, the parent is shielding the losses of the subs so that the subs can pad their reports. That makes no sense. Do many subs file independent docs with the SEC? They are almost always part of a consolidated group.

I agree with your general sentiment.......the point you make is the reason we have Sarbox now. I am just pointing out semantics.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive.

"Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte
TripletDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2008, 10:15 PM   #7
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
I would say that it would be inefficient. I don't know if it is abnormal.

Again, are you sure you want to be using the term "holding company?" The situation you describe in your first post has nothing really to do with holding companies. Or even subsidiaries. I think you are talking about companies that use special purpose entities to shell-game losses and shelter tax.

Enron was not engaging in shady deals with subs. Enron had shady dealings with SPEs (specifically, limited partnerships in the case of Enron).

Also, in your hypo, the parent is shielding the losses of the subs so that the subs can pad their reports. That makes no sense. Do many subs file independent docs with the SEC? They are almost always part of a consolidated group.

I agree with your general sentiment.......the point you make is the reason we have Sarbox now. I am just pointing out semantics.
I spoke with their accountant and she said it was a "holding" company. We usually have an "alpha" number linking subs of one corporation, but that "holding" company didn't have one.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2008, 06:46 PM   #8
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post

Also, in your hypo, the parent is shielding the losses of the subs so that the subs can pad their reports. That makes no sense. Do many subs file independent docs with the SEC? They are almost always part of a consolidated group.

I agree with your general sentiment.......the point you make is the reason we have Sarbox now. I am just pointing out semantics.
I just found out that as long as no one subsidiary holds controlling interest, you don't have to report consolidated.
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.