KPMG’s Response Letter to Elizabeth Warren Re: Wells Fargo

Since the response to the wells fargo fraud is difficult to read online we decided to reproduce it here

The letter is dated October 27, 2016

The letter is from Lynne Doughtie who is the KPMG US CEO

Dear Senators Warren, Sanders, Hirono and Markey: Thank you for your letter dated October 27, 2016.

KPMG is committed to audit quality and to preserving the integrity of our capital markets and takes very seriously its role as independent auditor of Wells Fargo’s financial statements and internal controls over financial reporting.  KPMG also takes very seriously the conduct described

in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) settlement and other reports.  At the outset, it is important to emphasize that not every illegal act has a meaningful impact on a company’s financial statements or its system of internal controls over financial reporting.   From the facts developed to date, including those set out in the CFPB settlement, the misconduct described did not implicate any key control over financial reporting and the amounts reportedly involved did not significantly impact the bank’s  financial statements.  Most importantly, KPMG is confident that its audits and reviews of Wells Fargo’s  consolidated financial statements were appropriately planned and performed in accordance with applicable professional standards.

Listed below are your questions and our responses to your questions.

1)        Was KPMG aware of any of the illegal sales practices committed by Wells Fargo employees from 2011 2015 and addressed in the CFPB settlement?

As part  of KPMG’s  audits  of Wells Fargo’s  financial  statements, KPMG performed procedures to identify instances of unethical and illegal conduct. The audit team interviewed the company’s chief auditor, members of the company’s primary investigative department known as the  Corporate  Investigations  Unit,  the  company’s  controller’s  office,  attorneys  in the  legal department,  and,  at  times,  outside  counsel.    KPMG  also  inspected  regulatory  reports  and interviewed  the banking  regulators,  and reviewed  reports  provided  to executive  management  and board members.   These  included  the chief compliance  officer’s  report to the audit committee,  and reports    to   the   bank’s    Audit    &   Examination     Committee   (A&E  Committee)  containing investigations that related to accounting, internal accounting controls, auditing, whistleblower claims and claims of retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

As a result of these procedures, KPMG became aware of instances of unethical and illegal conduct by Wells  Fargo employees, including incidents involving these improper sales practices, and we were satisfied that the appropriate members of management were fully informed with respect to such conduct.  In 2013, the company initiated an investigation into potential sales misconduct (referred to as “simulated funding”) in Southern California.  The investigation into this “simulated funding” continued into 2014, and led to the termination of a number of employees, including branch managers and an area manager.  In 2015, KPMG became aware that the City Attorney of Los Angeles  had initiated a lawsuit over improper sales practices, and that the company had hired an outside consultant to review its entire sales incentive program.  The audit team  monitored  the  progress  of  this  lawsuit  and  reviewed  the  consultant’s  report  and the conclusions therein.

a) Did KPMG  communicate this knowledge with  top  executives at  Wells Fargo? If so, please provide  electronic or paper  copies of any and all communications.

KPMG has not identified any information known to us that was not also known to executive management through its internal processes.   Importantly, the bank’s  A&E Committee received reports describing instances of employee misconduct, including the sales practices issues.  The A&E Committee meetings were attended by the bank’s executive management, and the materials KPMG’s auditors obtained were provided to executive management as well. Moreover, the 2013 investigation and the 2015 lawsuit were widely reported in the press and well known to the bank’s executives.

b) Did you assess whether Wells Fargo had controls in place to prevent this illegal activity?  What was your  assessment  about  the quality of these controls and how well they were executed?

As the  independent  auditor of Wells Fargo’s  financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting, KPMG considered the bank’s  controls over these practices from a financial reporting perspective.   And, from a financial reporting perspective, the improper sales practices did not involve key controls over financial reporting.   From the financial statement perspective, its effects were not financially significant.

The opening of an unauthorized account did not itself have an impact on Wells Fargo’s financial statements.  If a bank employee placed a customer’s funds in one authorized account, or in many unauthorized accounts, the total amount of deposits remained constant.  Only the total amount  of deposits  is reported  in the bank’s  financial  statements.    KPMG  analyzed  the potential impact  on the  financial   statements   of  setting  up  unauthorized   accounts,   whether  caused  by  an improper  sales practice  or otherwise.    The audit team  concluded  that the potential  impact  of any such  errors  would  likely  be  insignificant.   They  received  additional   support  for this  conclusion when   an  outside   consultant    calculated   the  potential   financial   impact   of  the  improper   sales practices.    That  consultant   concluded   the  fees  associated  with  unauthorized   accounts  were  less than $5 million,  and that amount  had accumulated  over a five-year   period.

KPMG’s   audit team,  however,  did not limit their consideration   to the numbers.   They also looked  at who was involved  in the improper  sales practices.   None  worked  in financial  reporting or had the ability to influence  the financial  reporting  process.

It  should  be  noted  that  a  special  committee   of  independent   directors   of  the  Board  is conducting  an investigation   into this matter.   In accordance  with our professional   responsibilities, KPMG’s   audit  team  is  closely   monitoring   this  investigation   to  determine   its  impact  on  our assessment.

2)        Did any employee of Wells Fargo mislead any employee of KPMG about the extent and impact of the unauthorized account creation addressed in the CFPB settlement during your audits?

KPMG has not reached a conclusion as to whether any Wells Fargo employee misled our auditors about the extent and impact of the conduct described in the CFPB settlement. Any conclusion on that question will be made on the basis of all the facts developed in this matter, including the results of the special committee investigation.

3)        Has KPMG conducted any internal reviews, reexaminations, or reassessments of its Wells Fargo audits in light of the information revealed in the settlement?

In accordance with our professional obligations, we have evaluated the information in the CFPB settlement and other reports and continue to monitor new information to determine the impact on our prior and current audits. To date this information supports KPMG’s conclusions with respect to the effect that improper sales practices had on the company’s financial statements and internal controls over financial reporting.  The CFPB found that the fees improperly charged to customers amounted to less than $2.5 million over a five-year period, and directed Wells Fargo to place $5 million in reserve for all affected customers.  These numbers are to be considered in context of the bank’s reported results, which included approximately $23 billion in net income in

2015 alone. Furthermore, the CFPB settlement attributed the misconduct to employees seeking to obtain credit under the incentive-compensation program, and did not identify any person involved in the improper sales practices who was involved in or had influence over financial reporting.

As stated above, the special committee’s investigation into the issues raised by the CFPB is currently ongoing. Any conclusions that KPMG reaches, including any reconsideration of the prior work, will be informed by the facts developed by that investigation.   Even prior to the completion  of  that  investigation,  the  facts  described  in  the  CFPB  settlement  and  ensuing investigation   are  being   closely   monitored   by  KPMG’s   audit  team  and  will  inform  KPMG’s ongoing  audit approach.

4)        Has KPMG faced  any disciplinary action or queries from  the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in relation to your audits of Wells Fargo? If so, please provide details on these actions or queries.

KPMG  has  not  been  subject  to any  discipline  by the  PCAOB  with  respect  to the Wells Fargo  audit  engagements.      The  Wells  Fargo  audit  engagements   are  covered   by  the  PCAOB inspection  program.   Since the announcement   of the CFPB settlement,  KPMG  has had appropriate and relevant  communications   with the PCAOB  consistent  with what I have described  in this letter.

5)        Based on your present knowledge of the creation of unauthorized accounts at Wells Fargo, does your firm stand by its conclusions from 20112015 that “Wells Fargo maintained,  in  all  material  respects,  effective  internal  control  over financial reporting”?

Yes.  Accordingly,   KPMG  has not withdrawn  its reports on the bank’s  financial  statements or management’s    assessment   of the effectiveness   of its internal  controls  over financial  reporting. As detailed  above, the facts developed  thus far with respect  to the improper  sales practices  do not implicate  the effectiveness   of internal  controls  over financial  reporting.   Of course,  in accordance with  our professional   obligations,   KPMG  will  continue  to monitor  the  situation,  with particular attention  to the investigation   by the special committee.