Who did SP talk to? Some AICPA geniuses, Big Four partners or SOX proponents? The public has been deceived about the importance of internal control (IC). Bad IC did not cause Enron. Management "making" its numbers and a CPA firm unwilling to tell Enron, "Take your $52 million a year in fees and shove it" did. CPAs under AICPA and Tredway Commission tutelage push IC as a magic elixir to do away with or mitigate risk. Real corporate risk is not in Susie bookkeeper abstracting checks before initial recording but doing economically stupid things, like Citigroup creating SIVs. Did KPMG tell Citigroup its SIVs were risky and made Citi little money? For $73 million a year in fees what did KMPG do? What did KPMG substantiate at Citigroup? Did it exercise independent judgment and tell Citigroup, "That's economic nonsense", at least with respect to its SIV accounting? In 1997 KPMG came up with a 92-page book, Auditing Organizations Through a Strategic-Systems Lens, which was an apologia for not doing substantive testing. KPMG's "audit process" was attacked by Cullinan and Sutton in "Defrauding the public interest: A critical examination of reengineered audit processes and the likelihood of detecting fraud", Critical Prespectives on Accounting, June 2002, 13, 3, 297-310, available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/. CPA firm audits are not worth the paper they're printed on if they use KPMG's "audit processes".
As for the models, I've written about them before. Strictly alchemy, see my 23 August post.