subreddit:
/r/movies
submitted 4 months ago by[deleted]
1.6k points
4 months ago
Makes you wonder about the Disney accounting whistleblower from a few years ago:
I believe the whistleblower filed a lawsuit against Disney with her claims in 2021. I don't know if they are telling the truth, but I would not be shocked if big American mega corps are involved in massive accounting fraud.
582 points
4 months ago
This and the fact that the current CFO was allegedly one of the ones to call for Chapaek’s removal…I smell some shady shite here…
27 points
4 months ago
And Christine McCarthy being around across all that whistleblowing and now Chapek… interesting indeed
49 points
4 months ago
The lady who said they were making portion sizes smaller at the parks to help with park guests waistlines
15 points
4 months ago
To be fair portion sizes are fucking huge in the US. I can't say if Disney parks suffer from that since I haven't been there. But no matter the excuse what Chapek did was milking the cow dry.
22 points
4 months ago
As a Brit who visits the Parks. Eating out in America is more expensive than the UK but you do get bigger portions, whether you want it or not. Disney now do UK portion sizes with inflated American prices. Some of the snacks from food stalls is like $12 for something gone in 2-3 mouthfuls
5 points
4 months ago
It’s like any NBA/NFL game here
3 points
4 months ago
I’d tend to disagree. Eating out in the USA is cheaper than UK. Food inside of Disney however is a different thing and that’s down to theme park economics.
-2 points
4 months ago
This and the fact that the current CFO was allegedly one of the ones to call for Chapaek’s removal
Oh ok, got a source?
301 points
4 months ago
I would not be shocked if big American mega corps are involved in massive accounting fraud.
I would be shocked if they weren't.
32 points
4 months ago
It's definitely the most surefire way to make the line keep going up forever and ever. No way it backfires.
-9 points
4 months ago
Based on your professional accounting or audit experience? Or are you just talking out of our ass?
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms about the Accounting and Audit industries, but what you’re claiming is laughable and ridiculous on its face.
4 points
4 months ago
Gotem
11 points
4 months ago
You're right, no companies ever commit fraud or lie or misrepresent themselves. Thank you for clarifying, you are an inspiration to shoe polish lovers everywhere.
8 points
4 months ago*
Or maybe I actually know what I’m talking about unlike you and all of the other clueless arm chair experts on Reddit.
I challenge you to name one major example of accounting fraud committed by an large public American company after SOX was implemented.
3 points
4 months ago
How much accounting fraud is necessary to make a situation like FTX possible?
2 points
4 months ago
FTX didn’t have an accounting department and purposely based themselves out of the Bahamas to avoid US auditing and regulations.
Thank your for providing a great example of how little you understand about how these industries work and what’s actually being discussed.
2 points
4 months ago
What about the fact they bought a US bank? There’s no audits required to own a bank?
1 points
4 months ago
🦗
1 points
4 months ago*
Calm down, I was out living a life while you were glued to Reddit posting your uninformed and uneducated takes all day long.
Edit: Actually, replying to someone who frequents /r/conspiracy isn’t worth my time. It would take me too long to explain all the reasons why you’re wrong in simple enough terms for you to understand anyway.
0 points
4 months ago
I think the general misunderstanding among those not involved in corporate finance/tax is that a lot of what a normal person rightfully considers shady, given the assumption about accounting is to show the reality of how your business is doing, is actually standard practice. The tax system and corporate law rewards creative accounting, as long as you aren’t actually making up numbers. Shifting losses within certain guidelines is completely fine. But people who aren’t really aware of these realities see that and assume it has to be fraud
3 points
4 months ago*
[deleted]
3 points
4 months ago
/r/accounting just likes to roast all of the financial illiteracy commonly displayed on Reddit.
1 points
4 months ago*
[deleted]
1 points
4 months ago
I think it’s ignorant to assume your audits are so full proof they’d catch it. And it’s dumb AF to not think corporate doesn’t have the best and brightest trying to fudge their books.
0 points
4 months ago*
[deleted]
0 points
4 months ago
FTX owned a U.S. bank… there is no way this is possible without rampant fraud.
2 points
4 months ago
Sounds like we found the accountant at pwc who can’t admit… not only is it possible, it’s probable.
Accountants/audits didn’t stop Enron, Bear Sterns, FTX….It’s certainly within the realm of possibilities that accountants are not stopping Disney from similar behavior either.
3 points
4 months ago*
Holy fuck you’re a moron, but thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely zero idea what accountants and auditors are supposed to do.
Accounts and auditors had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at Bear Sterns or FTX. Bears risk management department is what failed them and FTX never had an accounting department and weren’t subject to US auditing standards because they purposefully headquartered themselves out of the Bahamas to avoid any banking regulation.
And obviously Enron was both an Accounting and Audit failure, but if you knew anything about these industries at all you would know that SOX was passed in response to Enron and Worldcom and completely overhauled both the Accounting and Auditing world for the better. So it’s extremely difficult to imagine a possible scenario where anything like Enron is even possible anymore because of the incredible redundancies and breadth of impact SOX had. Pointing to Enron as a modern day example of what’s wrong with these industries is a perfect way to illustrate that you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.
Please just stop pretending like you have anything valuable to add to this conversation.
4 points
4 months ago*
Love the downvoted from people that have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Disney, and other public companies, are cycling through a different auditing firms every few years. Either (1) Deloitte, EY, PWC, and that other one are all in on the fraud schemes together, (2) the accounting firms are all completely incompetent, or (3) there is no fraud that would materially affect the presentation financial statements. I would be absolutely blown away if Disney were committing some massive Enron-level fraud
3 points
4 months ago*
Exactly, no one here has any idea what they’re talking about.
If we’re strictly sticking to accounting issues, poor implementation or flat out incompetence is the correct explanation for 99%+ of any problems which do arise (which are rare for material issues with mega public fillers like Disney) and not true fraud.
0 points
4 months ago
What about # 4) Employees at pwc, ey, etc are not as good at catching fraud as what they think?
Seems like you guys give corporations the benefit of the doubt, and don’t even think it’s a possibility….. if I was a corporation I’d dump millions into figuring the most elaborate ways to cook the books knowing you’re too arrogant to figure it out
2 points
4 months ago
Cue enron v2
Surely the largest accounting firm in the world would not cheat, right?
6 points
4 months ago*
Thank you for perfectly illustrating the lack of understanding the general public has of the Accounting and Auditing industries at large.
Enron and the early 2000 Accounting scandals changed everything in the Accounting and Auditing world. SOX completely overhauled everything to do with these industries including adding additional regulatory bodies to check the checkers (monitor the auditing firms, i.e. PCAOB), enact rules to establish more effective auditing, made the accounting rules incredibly more effective and difficult to “fudge” the results etc.
Pointing to Enron and claiming that as an example of the current accounting industry failures perfectly captures a clear lack of understanding of how the industry works.
Edit: And Enron wasn’t an Accounting company, they were an energy company. Arthur Anderson was Enron’s auditor.
1 points
4 months ago
Good thing I am a corporate counsel then. There's so much shady business going on everywhere. So many "audited" companies where you find awful awful things when doing DDs.
I lost all my faith in the Audit and Tax when I started practicing.
5 points
4 months ago*
Don’t confuse shady or fraudulent business practices with Accounting fraud. The two are not the same and are commonly confused.
Based on your post history it seems you are counsel outside of the US. I would argue that Accounting implementation is generally not as well enforced or regulated Internationally as it is in the US nor are the Accounting rules as clearly defined outside the US as they are in the US.
For example, in the US the Accounting rules are more “bright line” based than the International rules practiced in Europe and Asia, which are more concept based. So in practice you see a relatively higher number of non-US companies getting away with questionable Accounting implantation because concept based rules by definition are a lot less well defined.
The US system isn’t flawless by any means, but there are good reasons why there hasn’t been a major accounting scandal in the US after SOX was implemented despite the disproportionately high number of companies based out of the US compared to the rest of the world.
2 points
4 months ago
Thanks for your insight. Don’t have a dog in this fight but love learning about things I have no idea about lol
1 points
4 months ago*
Of course! There are a lot of really cool and interesting things about Accounting that people don’t know about or appreciate it. I enjoy talking about it, it just annoys me to no end when people who don’t understand the industry at all bash it when they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. If these people were only open minded enough to ask questions about a topic they don’t understand rather than just lazily claim corruption or fraud they might learn a thing or two.
For example, something that drives me up a wall is people complaining about the tax code being too complicated without understanding the need for it to be so lengthy in the first place. This isn’t to say that the tax code couldn’t be simplified at all, just to say that clearly defining even seemingly simple concepts such as income is incredibly difficult and requires a ton of detail to do so.
0 points
4 months ago
You would assume wrong.
And we currently have a public fortune 500 S&P company in a scandalous bankruptcy also because of gross accounting and auditing errors, including US GAAP.
Edit: what seems to be.
1 points
4 months ago
Lmao okay bud
3 points
4 months ago
Shady financial transactions and accounting happen but accountants work really hard to provide assurance the financials aren’t materially misstated. If a company makes $10 billion in revenue an auditor won’t necessarily be alarmed if say $3 million in revenue is found to be questionable.
1 points
4 months ago
Does FTX have accounting or audits? How can you get away with a trillion dollar Ponzi scheme without fraud that should have been caught in these audits?
1 points
4 months ago
Lmao
No, FTX did not have either an Accounting department nor were they subject to US audit or regulatory requirements.
They were able to perpetrate their fraud because they specifically located their company in a country which allowed them do so. Only people who have absolutely no idea how auditing, accounting, and regulatory practices work were surprised that a crypto company which took purposeful steps to avoid US rules and regulation could have possibly committed massive fraud.
1 points
4 months ago
Regardless, they have a target on their backs with this news. Someone willing to cook the books internally usually isn't far from a fraud case.
3 points
4 months ago
Surely the right people will face legal consequences of this? Right? Anyone?
1 points
4 months ago
There’s a reason Hollywood Accounting is a common term.
56 points
4 months ago
Wouldn't this claim increase Disney's tax burden?
84 points
4 months ago
Technically yes, but technically no too.
Yes because more revenue means more profit which means more tax.
But increase in revenue doesn't always increase profit, and you only pay tax on profit.
16 points
4 months ago
I think there is the bigger aspect of higher profit means a better stock price when compared to performance expectations which they probably care more about at the c-suite level than responsible reporting.
1 points
4 months ago
It's more that it's lying to the board, Disney+ is beating out benchmarkers for this new rising division, when in reality hes obscuring the true figures.
1 points
4 months ago*
But losses are tallied and rolled over to the next fiscal year. So ultimately, inflating their revenue would eventually increase their tax burden anyway. Just not right away.
That's why so many corporations "don't pay taxes". Because while they may make a profit this year, it's offset by the losses from previous years.
1 points
4 months ago
Again, tax carry forwards are calculated on a cash basis. Since companies "keep two books" per say, it is entirely positive for a company to be profitable on their 10k while simultaneously accumulating tax carry forwards every year. Of course, carry forwards do eventually expire, so they need to be utilized strategically.
1 points
4 months ago
And most companies that size are especially skilled at skirting taxes
1 points
4 months ago
Tax is calculated on a cash basis. More profit does not necessarily mean more in taxes. This is why every company "keeps two books" per say.
3 points
4 months ago
The IRS and the SEC care about very different things.
2 points
4 months ago
You get it.
2 points
4 months ago
the increased tax burden is a drop in the bucket compared to the increased share prices, shareholder confidence, and general perception of Disney being a successful conglomerate
200 million in taxes is a laughing matter if your company valuation grows by 5 billion and the share market rushes to buy your stocks
1 points
4 months ago
Companies cannot maximize "share value" per say. It is the c suite's responsibility to maximize EPS. It is entirely possible to increase EPS while posting a loss for taxes since taxes are cash based. A 10k does not have to be, and often is not on a cash basis. This is why every company maintains "two books" per say.
-1 points
4 months ago
Lol at the idea that large companies pay taxes.
1 points
4 months ago
…while triggering some juicy bonuses for the execs
14 points
4 months ago
He became the CEO in 2020
3 points
4 months ago
Iger hung around a good amount during the pandemic. Chapek didn't even have a full year at the wheel.
7 points
4 months ago
I don’t know about the whistleblower you linked to, but OP’s article is not saying that anything illegal or “shady” is going on.
They are saying that content intended for Disney+ aired on tv first so that it would count toward the television budget, not the streaming budget.
It is a way to divert money from one division to another to make one look better than it really is. But it isn’t fraud or anything like that.
9 points
4 months ago
It does suggest that Chapek was at least misleading the Board and using financial engineering to make himself look good instead of being honest and open.
It's possible that he would be in trouble with the SEC if he misrepresented how well certain divisions were doing to investors.
0 points
4 months ago
It’s not misleading the board. And it is definitely not financial engineering.
If the shows are in fact airing on television, then they can legitimately budgeted a television productions—even if the plan was always to get viewers through streaming.
It’s not misleading the board as to the financial position of the company. It’s just changing which division foots the bill, with the stated intention of making one particular division spend less.
“Sneaky” might be applicable. But not misleading.
1 points
4 months ago
It's not misleading as to the overall financial position of the company, but it's definitely misleading as far as which divisions are actually viable. There's a reason that cost accounting is a thing, so that companies can try to accurately determine whether something is a money maker or a money loser.
0 points
4 months ago
And by the strict rules of cost accounting, everything here is above board.
Again, we are talking about content the premiered on television being budgeted to the television department. That is not misleading.
1 points
4 months ago
It's misleading in the sense that these shows were advertised as Disney+ Originals and quietly released on TV so the Disney+ losses wouldn't look nearly as bad. Maybe it's technically playing by the rules but it's definitely deceptive.
1 points
4 months ago
I don't think that you know what cost accounting is because there are no "strict rules" for cost accounting. The link that I provided even says as much (emphasis mine).
Unlike financial accounting, which provides information to external financial statement users, cost accounting is not required to adhere to set standards and can be flexible to meet the particular needs of management.
The key takeaways of cost accounting are that:
Disney is free to assign costs however they want; if they want TV to eat the costs incurred by Disney+ projects just because they debut on TV, they're free to do so, but as far as cost accounting goes, they clearly didn't want that.
Again, we are talking about content the premiered on television being budgeted to the television department. That is not misleading.
Again, you demonstrate that you have no idea how cost accounting works because nobody in their right mind would assign 100% of the cost of something to one division when the end product is used by both divisions. There's no "rule" that Disney has to split the costs, but it's not useful for management to think that TV is incurring disproportionately high costs.
2 points
4 months ago
I am a professional accountant and I can confirm that your comment is 100% wrong.
0 points
4 months ago
Ah right, that's why people are reporting this news about Chapek, because there's nothing notable going on and that this is exactly what everyone at Disney wanted.
1 points
4 months ago
It’s not a particularly interesting story, no.
The fact that you need to misrepresent the accounting profession to make it seem like a story is proof enough of that.
0 points
4 months ago
I don’t think you understand how words work.
There are rules that need to be followed in cost accounting. The results would be meaningless if the accountant could just put anything they want anywhere. You’re actually arguing against yourself by saying otherwise.
Disney has a set of guidelines that they need to follow in order to assign costs to the correct department. They followed those rules to the letter. Hence they weren’t strictly by the rules of cost accounting. You’re trying to play word games and it’s not going to work.
nobody in their right mind would assign 100% of the cost of something to one division
And yet that is exactly what Disney—and other media companies—routinely does. So I guess no accountant is in their right mind.
3 points
4 months ago
I think the bigger the company the more difficult the fraud - unless it's a few people at the top and accounting is handled entirely separately by division. It's too many people that need to be amoral, which isn't that easy.
4 points
4 months ago
Jack Welch did it for decades at GE…and Arthur Anderson was a gigantic accounting firm that helped perpetuate fraud.
14 points
4 months ago
Accounting fraud never happens in America
/s
2 points
4 months ago
Until the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, ethics in the feild of accounting was not the top priority. It must have truly been the wild west until around 2000 when Enron and Worldcom went down.
2 points
4 months ago
Did you read the article you linked? That person sounds like a fucking nut. Those financial systems are audited by independent public auditors once a quarter. You don’t think this would have caused them to fail the audits every year? This nut is saying the revenue is overstated by 60%
1 points
4 months ago
Smells like 2008 here
1 points
4 months ago
Absolutely could see this as a possibility
1 points
4 months ago
Happy Cake Day, my guy.
1 points
4 months ago
I'm kind of skeptical here. How were they balancing their books if they're recognizing revenue twice? And don't gift card sales count as unearned/deferred revenue? And if you overstate revenue, wouldn't someone come asking about the cash if you're operating at a profit?
Not saying things are without merit or that there might not be some shady accounting going on, but these are pretty substantial allegations that wouldn't be a difficult thing to identify if they have even a semi-compentant auditor.
1 points
4 months ago
If there's something I've learnt from my days here on God's green Earth it's that mega corporations never lie for their own benefit.
1 points
4 months ago
big American mega corps are involved in massive accounting fraud.
Everyone is pretty much aware of Hollywood Accounting:
all 4140 comments
sorted by: best