Saturday, October 18, 2008

Excel over form

Prevent duplicate entries in excel sheet

Many of us would have used data validation more to use the list (drop down) tool, the data validation with a minor tweak can prevent you from entering duplicate entries in a specific range of cells. Its pretty easy, heres how
  1. First select the range of cells you want to apply the Data Validation rule to. Also, note the Active Cell (the unshaded cell in the selected range);
  2. In Excel 2003: From the Data menu select Data Validation. In Excel 2007: On the Data tab, click the Data Validation dropdown in the Data Tools group and select Data Validation from the options;
  3. On the Settings tab select Custom from the Allow dropdown;
  4. In the Formula field enter =COUNTIF(selected_range,active_cell)=1 Make sure you use Absolute References (i.e. dollar signs $A$1:$A$200) ** for the selected_range and a Relative Reference (i.e. no dollar signs A1) for the active_cell;
  5. Click the Error Alert tab and enter a Title for the error (i.e. Duplicate Entry!) & Click OK.

Identifying Your Conditionally Formatted Cells (XL2003/XL2007)

If you're a fan of Conditional Formatting you likely have struggled with this little problem. Once you have applied Conditional Formatting to a range (or ranges) of cells you may have needed to go back later and make changes to the formatting or the condition used. You need to make the change to all the cells you previously formatted, but how can you tell which cells have Conditional Formatting?Not a problem!

There is an easy way to identify cells that have Conditional Formatting applied.

  1. Press the F5 key (or click Edit, Go To) and click the Special button at the bottom of the Go To dialog. Click on the Conditional Formats option and another option (All, Same) becomes available.
  2. To identify which cells have Conditional Formatting the same as the currently Active Cell, click Same and OK. All cells on the worksheet that have the same Conditional Formatting will be selected.
  3. You can now easily make changes or select additional cells to apply the formatting to.Instead of selecting the Same option, All will help you identify all cells in your worksheet containing Conditional Formatting.

Monday, October 13, 2008

PWC settles for a $97.5M settlement - (adds liquidity)

In times of bailouts, the FED  needs a helping hand. PWC just did.. for its client AIG. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $97.5 million to the state of Ohio to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors in troubled insurer AIG (American International Group). In May 2005, AIG's accounting problems led to a $3.9-billion restatement, and removal of former CEO Maurice Greenberg.

The settlement is among the 10 highest to be paid by an accounting firm to settle a securities fraud class action lawsuit, according to Nancy Rogers, Ohio's attorney general.

The "partial" settlement, on Friday, came after the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System,  and the Ohio Police and Pension Fund filed a lawsuit seeking damages for investors who bought AIG securities from 1999 to 2005. In the complaint, PwC was accused of violating securities laws relating to a market division scheme allegedly involving AIG that was disclosed in 2004 and improper accounting for reinsurance and other transactions.


AIG currently is facing another lawsuit filed in May by the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund. The Florida fund accused the insurer of manipulating the market by making false statements about its financial health before disclosing a first quarter loss of $7.8 billion. PwC is not implicated in that lawsuit and in February it gave a warning sign of AIG's problems when it found that there was a "material weakness in its internal control" relating to the accounting of its credit default swaps portfolio.

Last month the U.S. government agreed to an $85 billion bail out AIG in exchange for warrants to purchase 80 percent of the company, which is selling off several units of its business to repay the loan.



American Banks ask SEC to give them a fair deal

Well to be honest, i guess Fair value accounting was reserved more for columnists and bloggers like us, rather than to be used practically.

In the latest dent, the American Banking Association (ABA) has asked the SEC to step in and override the controversial FAS 157. In a sharp critique, the ABA has gone after FASB' staff position 157-3 arguing that the revised guidance by the FASB still requires banks to mark-to-market assets at fire sale prices. "Given the importance of this issue, the impact it has on the crisis in the financial markets, and the seeming inability of the FASB to address in a meaningful way the problems of using fair-value in dysfunctional markets, we believe it is necessary for the SEC to use its statutory authority to step in and override the guidance issued by FASB," Edward L. Yingling, president and chief executive officer of the ABA wrote in a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

I am not sure what the FASB's revised guidance (FSP 157-3) was set to achieve, after taking more flak than any other accounting pronouncement, the revised guidance should have addressed the needs of the current market situations, rather it has complicated to level beyond compare. This is why
  • The revised guidance did away with the requirement of mark-to-marking distressed assets at exit prices - Kudos to this (the BIG 4 were against this)
  • Distressed assets were to be valued on a composite valuation model to reflect the true value of the assets. This is a much required guidance, as in illiquid markets, the best way to mark-to-market is on the basis of the holding capacity of the investor rather than the market condition - kudos to this
  • In calculating the fair value, the valuation model must factor in the liquidity risk of the asset........did i hear it right THE LIQUIDITY RISK........... ain't this a circular error.
On one hand, the pronouncement does away with the requirement of fair-valuing the assets at fire prices in an illiquid market, but at the same time requires valuation models to include the impact of liquidity risk in valuing this assets. Whats the difference.....does the need to value distressed assets arises in liquid market or illiquid markets.....

Well a silver lining, the DOW Jones is up 11% at the time of writing this blog, here's hoping we get out of this illiquid mess and FAS 157. SEC its upta you