The announcement last week by Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE: HPQ) that it bought software company Autonomy for much more than it was worth, and the allegation that Autonomy cooked the books to inflate its value, shows once again that America's corporate governance is fraught with irregularities and accounting improprieties that go unnoticed and unchecked until it's too late.
The latest foible leads us to ask: If company shareholders can't trust the accountants, whom can they trust? If investors cannot have faith in those who sit on the board of a publicly held company to be the guardians of their interests and to do due diligence on acquisitions, then why should they have confidence in a company's claim that its financial health is sound?
The Autonomy debacle has contributed to a staggering $8.8 billion writedown at HP, which translates to approximately 80 percent of the $11 billion dollars the company paid for Autonomy. In addition to the significant financial loss in the fourth quarter, the effects of this jolt to HP go beyond the company's internal financial position and reflect a tardiness on the part of corporate America that has yet to implement checks and balances that prevent accounting fraud. Unfortunately, identifying the true value of a company is often a belated exercise -- something that happens when the true nature of the financial abuse catches up with current reality.
Our country's recent financial history bears out this point. In the late 1990s and early years of the 21st century, we witnessed the tech bubble in which corporate valuations were inflated and investors made hefty investments in many high-tech companies based on revenue projections that in hindsight were never cross checked and could never be substantiated. When demand fell, inventory rose, layoffs occurred, and accounting scandals hit companies like Lucent Technologies and WorldCom, dragging the economy into a recession. Even today, inflating stock prices based on hype more than a company's ability to generate revenues still has a place in America's corporate modus operandi, as we have seen this year with the Facebook IPO.
HP's acquisition of Autonomy follows this trend, and the question of who should take responsibility is a reasonable one. It would have been a nice gesture of humility and an act of leadership if HP CEO Meg Whitman took at least some responsibility for this latest fiasco. After all, Whitman, and most of HP's current board members, gave their blessing to this deal. Instead Whitman put the blame on her predecessor and the accountants that audited Autonomy. Whitman said during a conference call:
The CEO at the time and the head of strategy who led this deal are both gone, Léo Apotheker and Shane Robison. With regard to the board, you're right. Most of the board was here and voted for this deal, and we feel terrible about that. What I will say is the board relied on audited financials, audited by Deloitte, not brand x accounting firm but Deloitte. And by the way, during our very extensive due diligence process, we hired KPMG to audit Deloitte, and neither of them saw what we now see after someone came forward to point us in the right direction.
Reflecting on the acquisition process, Léo Apotheker issued a statement characterizing the due diligence process as "meticulous and thorough", and noted that HP hired two of the largest, most respected auditing firms. He said further:
According to HP, the accounting issues it discovered pre-date its acquisition of Autonomy. As such, it's apparent that Autonomy's alleged accounting misrepresentations misled a number of people over time – not just HP's leadership team, auditors and directors. In fact, the alleged improprieties apparently came to light only after an internal whistleblower raised the issue in the spring, well after my departure.
A spokesman for Deloitte LLP in the UK is quoted as telling The Wall Street Journal that "Deloitte UK categorically denies that it had any knowledge of any accounting improprieties or any misrepresentations in Autonomy's financial statements, or that it was complicit in any accounting improprieties or misrepresentations."
In the same article, Michael Lynch, founder of Autonomy, said:
We completely reject the allegations… I can't understand how you can write down $9 billion of value and say somehow this was all caused by something you didn't notice when you did due diligence with 300 people.
I could not agree more. Failing to find out the true value of Autonomy prior to the acquisition may help us understand other mind-boggling decisions such as the rather rash move, approved by the board, to spin off HP's PC business and then reverse course a few months later only to announce it would keep that business.
And what of the future? Can we now trust Catherine Lesjak, HP's chief financial officer, when she said on the conference call that HP is still looking at eliminating 29,000 people and that this will help turn the company's fortunes around? Based on what? On the figures from the same financial auditors who gave us the Autonomy valuation?
The Autonomy debacle confirms that HP's leadership team is weak, incompetent, and lacks judgment, especially when we recall that many in the tech world, such as Oracle Corp.'s CEO Larry Ellison, said at the time that HP had paid too much for Autonomy. As other OEMs forge a path forward, HP's inability to reverse its downward slide could become irreversible.
Let us hope HP can pull itself together and find a leadership team with enough insight and backbone to steer the company back to prosperity. Its customers and shareholders deserve that.
It's quite obvious that HP's problems are much deeper than the problems surrounding the Autonomy acquisition. Moody's has cut HP's credit rating, and says the company faces "competitive pressures, and execution challenges." You can read more here:
I see that you have your doubts about the results of the investigation, and I suspect that others feel the same way.As you may know, the US Securities and Exchange Commission's Enforcement Division and the UK's Serious Fraud Office for civil and criminal investigation are now investigating this case. It would be a very troubling situation indeed if HP and everyone else concerned doesn't get the answers they deserve. We all need to know who is responsible for misrepresenting Autonomy's financial results? Also, if the allegations by HP are true, how was the financial impairment calculated by HP? It would be a truly sad situation if after the investigation we are no closer to the truth. I don't believe this will be the case.
@Nicole: thanks for the very interesting link; it is a very transparent message from Mike and the only question is about the timing; often, it happens resigned (or fired) CEOs published their perspective of the story, its relationship with public opinion, the market and some flash on company's future. I am wondering the reason for waiting this wise vision and message once they have left the company, but maybe there are confidential reason for avoiding more info.
From the letter written by Autonomy CEO, it looks like HP has bungled things somewhere else and booking the losses against Autonomy ,to cover up things.
It will be interesting to know HP's reply to this letter
Nicole, We'll need forensic accountants and all kinds of experts to help us determine who's telling the truth between HP's executives, the former executives at Autonomy and the accounting company that inspected the books. At the end, I bet we still won't be any closer to the truth and none of this will recover the "goodwill" charge HP took and help the company repair its damaged reputation.
@Nicole: I agree. To me, many of board members may not have much in common with technology or they may not have much vision. They are of follower type, and not leader type. It is unfortunate, but they should also be very open and listen to all employee about their view. This might have helped them.
While some parts of the high-tech supply chain network can be improved by implementing policies and procedures, other parts of the network are beyond the control of even the most skilled supply chain executive.
As Intel improves its chip technology and deals with a declining PC market, the company is still making a concerted effort to improve its supply chain.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.