Why It Matters
The settlement underscores the financial and reputational risks of linking executive pay to aggressive growth metrics, prompting tighter governance across the agribusiness sector. It also signals heightened SEC scrutiny of inter‑segment accounting practices.
Key Takeaways
- •ADM paid $40 million to settle SEC fraud charges.
- •Nutrition unit's profit inflated via inter‑segment price manipulation.
- •Executive compensation tied to unrealistic operating‑profit targets.
- •Share price dropped 24% after disclosure, prompting leadership change.
Pulse Analysis
The ADM case highlights how aggressive growth narratives can pressure executives to bend accounting rules. By inflating the Nutrition segment’s profit through artificial rebates and inter‑segment pricing adjustments, senior leaders sought to meet compensation‑driven targets despite market headwinds such as COVID‑19 disruptions and inflation. This behavior not only misled investors but also triggered a sharp market reaction, eroding shareholder value and prompting regulatory intervention.
For compliance officers, the fallout offers a clear lesson on the importance of robust internal controls around inter‑segment transactions. Companies must enforce transparent pricing policies, require detailed documentation, and regularly test the effectiveness of these safeguards. When compensation structures are directly tied to specific financial metrics, the risk of manipulation escalates, making independent oversight and audit trails essential to detect and deter fraudulent activity.
Beyond ADM, the settlement serves as a cautionary signal to the broader agribusiness and food‑technology sectors, where complex supply chains often involve internal transfers. Regulators are likely to increase scrutiny of such arrangements, expecting firms to demonstrate fair‑value pricing and rigorous governance. Executives should reassess incentive plans to align with realistic performance goals, reducing the temptation for short‑term earnings manipulation and fostering sustainable, compliant growth.
ADM Settles Fraud Case for $40M
Food giant Archer Daniels Midland settles accounting fraud charges with the SEC
Food giant Archer Daniels Midland has settled accounting fraud charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission, agreeing to pay $40 million in penalties for sketchy financial reporting moves in the early 2020s that artificially inflated the earnings of a supposed high‑growth operating division. Internal control and anti‑fraud folks, we have lots to review here.
The SEC announced the enforcement action against ADM on Tuesday. The agency also settled charges against two former ADM executives involved in the meltdown: Vince Macciocchi, former head of the problematic division; and Ray Young, ADM’s chief financial officer at the time. A third former executive, Vikram Luthar, who first was CFO of the problematic division and then succeeded Young as CFO for the whole company in 2022, said he will fight SEC charges against him in court.
So what happened? As described in the SEC’s settlement order, Macciocchi, Young, and Luthar orchestrated a scheme in the early 2020s to puff up the performance of ADM’s newly formed Nutrition operating unit. The unit makes food, beverages, and nutritional supplements for humans, as well as animal feed for livestock and pets; and these days books around $7.35 billion in revenue a year. It’s one of three operating units ADM reports, and by far the smallest. (The other units make roughly $66.2 billion and $11.5 billion, for total 2024 revenue of $85.1 billion.)
When ADM first organized and launched the Nutrition unit in 2018, senior executives touted it as the company’s next big thing. In the early 2020s, ADM repeatedly told investors that the Nutrition segment was poised to provide 15 to 20 percent annual growth in operating profit. The incentive compensation plans for numerous employees — including Macciocchi, Young, and Luthar — were tied to hitting that operating profit goal.
In practice, however, the Nutrition unit struggled to meet its performance goals. (Remember early 2020s: covid, inflation, supply chain disruptions.) To hit those promised operating‑profit numbers, then, Young instructed employees to make a series of adjustments to transactions among ADM’s three business units to prop up the Nutrition segment’s performance. Luthar and Macciocchi then implemented those plans in coordination with other employees, the SEC said.
For example, the Nutrition segment routinely bought a food‑stuff ingredient called “white flake” from ADM’s far larger Ag Services segment. At the end of 2020, Luthar and Macciocchi realized the price of white flake would be much higher than expected in 2021. Rather than revise their profit expectations for Nutrition downward, however, they devised a plan to lower the recorded price of the white flake they bought from the Ag Services segment by framing the lower price as a “rebate.” Luthar and Macciocchi also recorded the adjustments across several quarters to further mask the arrangement.
Ultimately everything unraveled (as it always does!) in early 2024. ADM’s share price tumbled 24 percent the day after it disclosed its problems. Macciocchi, Young, and Luthar were all sent packing, and ADM brought in an outside CFO from 3M Corp. to replace Luthar.
For the record, Luthar’s attorney told the Wall Street Journal that the SEC “unjustly seeks to hold Mr. Luthar accountable for long‑standing business practices at ADM. The transactions in question were transparent and were considered, approved, and implemented in good faith at the company.” ADM itself neither admits nor denies any of the allegations in the SEC settlement order.
Lesson on Strategic Goals and Fraud Risk
SOX compliance and internal‑control teams have a few points to ponder from this case. First are the lessons about fraud risk itself: where it comes from, and the form accounting fraud might take depending on that origin story.
For example, ADM told investors that the Nutrition segment would be the source of much operating profit in years to come. The company also tied executives’ incentive‑based compensation to that financial‑performance goal.
So the immediate question for internal‑control and anti‑fraud types would be: How might executives manipulate operating profit so that they can keep hitting their incentive‑pay goals?
To that extent, ADM’s fraud today isn’t much different from Wells Fargo’s bogus bank‑accounts scandal of the 2010s. Wells Fargo defined a strategy of selling multiple products to customers, and then invented a metric — the “cross‑sell metric” — to measure employees’ performance toward that goal. As employees inevitably felt more pressure to hit their cross‑sell metric goals, they started opening bogus customer accounts to give the appearance that they were hitting their goal.
First came the strategic goal; then the metric to measure progress toward that goal; and finally the fraud mechanisms employees might use to short‑cut their way to that goal so they can make more money.
The ADM case is simpler to see, but follows the same fundamental path. ADM set out a strategic goal (growth in the Nutrition segment) and had a metric for that goal (operating profit). Employee compensation was tied to hitting that goal, so employees devised fraudulent short‑cuts to success.
Figure 1, below, is a chart I devised six years ago for Wells Fargo. It’s still useful for any fraud‑risk analysis you’d want to do on your company’s strategy.
The logic chain to assess misconduct risk in strategy.
Now let’s get more pedestrian in scope.
Adjustments and Documentation
Another lesson that jumps out to me is the importance of documentation and evidence. Financial controls need to be tight enough that when a rogue executive does try to push a bogus transaction through the system, the documentation required for the transaction will make the fraudulent element stick out like a sore thumb.
This is not news. We’ve seen it many times before in the accounting world with “estimates,” which really were just numbers a senior executive dreamed up to hit some desired performance goal. Strict documentation requirements to force that executive to explain why he or she is changing the estimate would go miles to reducing the risk of fraud.
We’ve also seen this concept many times in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, where an unqualified third party is hired as a “consultant” to help a local deal go through. What does the Justice Department’s FCPA Resource Guide recommend to be sure that you only hire legitimate intermediaries, who can do proper work at a fair price? Better documentation.
The only difference here is the nature of the fraud: tucked away in inter‑segment transactions that all happen under ADM’s corporate structure. Accounting for inter‑segment transactions is tricky under the best of circumstances. Companies should have clear accounting policies to define how an inter‑segment transaction is priced and recorded. If your policy is to price those transactions as approximating fair market value (as was ADM’s policy) then you’ll need sufficient documentation requirements to make sure the recorded price does indeed reflect fair market.
ADM did implement those reforms once the accounting misconduct came into public view. Those steps include improved documentation of pricing guidelines for inter‑segment sales, new internal accounting controls around inter‑segment transaction pricing, developing training on the new policies and controls, and testing the effectiveness of the new controls.
Now the rest of us just need to keep ADM’s example in mind as we build and operate our own internal controls.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...