In late 2024, retail giant Macy’s revealed a shocking accounting scandal involving its parcel delivery expenses. It said a single employee had managed to hide approximately $151 million in delivery costs over nearly three years, causing significant disruption to the company’s financial reporting and raising questions about its internal controls.
Macy’s uncovered the issue during the preparation of its financial statements for the third quarter of 2024. The company immediately launched an independent investigation, which it says revealed that a lone employee responsible for small package delivery expense accounting had intentionally made erroneous entries to conceal delivery expenses from the fourth quarter of 2021 through Nov. 2, 2024.
The hidden expenses totaled between $132 million and $154 million, ultimately settling at $151 million. While this amount may seem substantial, it’s important to note that Macy’s recognized approximately $4.36 billion in delivery expenses during the same period. The concealed costs represented about 3.5% of the company’s overall delivery expenses.
Contrary to initial speculation, the employee’s actions were not motivated by personal financial gain. Macy’s CEO Tony Spring stated that the investigation found the employee “acted alone and did not pursue these acts for personal gain.” Instead, it appears the alleged fraud began as an attempt to cover up an initial accounting mistake.
According to sources familiar with the investigation, the employee told investigators that they had mistakenly understated small parcel delivery expenses in late 2021. To hide this error, the employee allegedly continued to make intentional accounting errors and falsify documentation until the misstatement was discovered in the fall of 2024.
Despite the significant sum involved, Macy’s has stated that the accounting errors did not materially impact its operations or financial position. The company reported that there was no indication that the erroneous entries affected cash management activities, vendor payments or net sales figures.
However, the discovery of the alleged fraud did force Macy’s to delay its third-quarter earnings report by two weeks. The company also adjusted its annual profit forecast, reducing the expected adjusted profit per share from $2.34-$2.69 to $2.25-$2.50.
The incident has raised serious questions about Macy’s internal financial controls. How could such a significant discrepancy go unnoticed for nearly three years? Experts point to several factors that may have contributed to the oversight:
In response to the scandal, Macy’s has taken several steps:
A major factor contributing to the lack of oversight regarding hidden delivery expenses at Macy’s was the dramatic increase in e-commerce demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. As consumers turned to online shopping amid lockdowns and health concerns, Macy’s experienced a surge in its digital sales. For instance, digital sales at Macy’s jumped 12% in the last quarter of 2021 compared to the previous year. This marked the beginning of the period during which the erroneous financial entries were first recorded, according to the company’s disclosure.
Concurrently, the retail industry faced inflationary pressures, which compounded operational challenges. The pandemic-induced surge in online shopping meant that shipping and logistics costs were also escalating. Global supply chain disruptions led to increased shipping rates, adding a layer of complexity in forecasting and managing delivery expenses. Experts point out that such upheaval in the company’s delivery business and industrywide costs may have helped obscure the hidden expenses, given the difficulty in maintaining previous expectations for expense levels.
The rapid growth in e-commerce, along with inflationary surges, may have inadvertently diminished the attention on routine delivery costs, allowing the accumulated discrepancies to evade detection. Shipping expenses, while substantial, were masked under legitimate increases, making them less noticeable against the backdrop of elevated transactional volumes. Furthermore, the impacts of inflation on shipping costs might have justified the higher-than-expected figures in financial reviews, reducing the likelihood of raising red flags.
Consequently, the combination of unexpected market conditions and internal accounting weaknesses allowed the hidden expenses to go unnoticed for an extended period. As Macy’s and other retailers navigate the aftermath of such incidents, the importance of adaptive and vigilant oversight becomes increasingly clear. Balancing the demands of e-commerce expansion with meticulous financial controls will be crucial in preventing similar discrepancies in the future.
In the aftermath of Macy’s accounting scandal, many experts are questioning whether established freight bill and audit services might have identified the irregularities sooner. Freight audit services are designed to validate shipping invoices against actual transactions, ensuring the accuracy of freight costs and identifying discrepancies in billing.
The lack of such diligence in Macy’s case points to a possible gap in the company’s oversight mechanisms. The routine nature of delivery expense transactions, as previously indicated, may have allowed this to slip through without the customary scrutiny expected in financial auditing processes. A comprehensive freight audit might have alerted Macy’s to unusual patterns and discrepancies, or to consistent underreporting of delivery costs, allowing for early intervention and correction.
This approach, more attuned to detecting variances in freight expenses, could have acted as an additional layer of financial oversight. Such services not only reconcile invoices but also cross-check that costs align with contracted rates, which could have brought the employee’s alleged manipulations to light sooner.
Ultimately, Macy’s experience underscores the need for rigorous auditing systems that apply consistently across different financial processes. Such measures could provide a safeguard against similar attempts to manipulate financial records, offering companies a chance to rectify issues before they escalate into major financial or reputational crises.
The Macy’s accounting incident sheds light on a significant issue within logistics and supply chain management: The tendency to undervalue and overlook this vital segment can create a fertile ground for financial discrepancies to persist and escalate. In many large organizations, logistics and supply chain expenses and operations are seen as routine and predictable (“boring”), even amid significant shifts like those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated e-commerce boom. This perception can lead to complacency in monitoring and auditing practices, allowing fraudulent activities to go unnoticed over extended periods.
Supply chains are intricate networks involving numerous stakeholders, including suppliers, carriers, logistics operators, shippers and distributors, all playing crucial roles in a company’s operational success. However, due to the sheer complexity and volume of transactions, these networks are often misunderstood and their oversight insufficiently prioritized. It’s easy for organizations to focus more intensively on direct revenue-generating activities, sidelining the essential scrutiny on logistics operations’ financial accuracy.
The fraud at Macy’s, nestled in an environment of growing e-commerce demand and heightened shipping expenses due to pandemic-driven disruptions, exemplifies how shifts in market conditions can obscure irregularities in predictable cost areas. Delivery expenses, which should typically encounter rigorous validation due to their repetitive nature, became justifiable “noise” against the backdrop of genuine logistical challenges. This scenario illustrates how operational stressors, such as rapid scaling in logistics activities, can distract from necessary financial diligence.
Recognizing and valuing logistics and supply chain functions for their strategic importance rather than relegating them to repetitive, low-risk categories could enhance detection and prevention of fraud. Companies could benefit from investing in dedicated oversight and audit mechanisms that address the specificities of logistics transactions and expense reporting, reducing the reliance on assumptions based solely on historical data.
By elevating the role of logistics and supply chain oversight in corporate governance, organizations can safeguard against both innocent oversights and malicious intentions. This shift requires financial leaders to advocate for, and implement, comprehensive monitoring systems capable of adapting to the dynamic conditions inherent to the modern commercial landscape.
The Macy’s accounting incident is not an isolated case and reflects a growing trend of fraud in the freight sector, driven by several key factors. The constantly expanding number and volume of transactions involved in freight operations provide ample opportunity for fraudulent activities to develop and go unnoticed. With billions of dollars moving through complex logistics networks, even slight discrepancies can add up to substantial financial losses over time.
Moreover, there is often a significant gap in understanding logistics among senior corporate executives. Many top-level decision-makers focus primarily on financial metrics and sales performance, often neglecting the operational complexities of logistics and supply chain management. This lack of comprehension can lead to insufficient oversight and inadequate investment in technologies or systems necessary for monitoring logistics expenses rigorously.
Compounding this issue is the limited enforcement of criminal penalties for freight fraud. Despite the potential for immense financial repercussions, there is frequently a lack of significant deterrents for individuals engaged in such activities. The absence of strong legal consequences may embolden those contemplating manipulative actions, knowing the risk of facing criminal charges is relatively low.
As freight fraud continues to expand, companies face increasing pressure to adopt more sophisticated and comprehensive fraud detection and prevention measures. This includes embracing advanced data analytics, implementing robust auditing procedures and fostering a culture of financial vigilance across all operational levels. By understanding and addressing these areas of vulnerability, businesses can better protect themselves against fraud and maintain the integrity of their financial reporting.
In light of the accounting scandal at Macy’s, it has become evident that many companies lack the rigor to understand the complexities caused by their logistics and supply chain networks. While the Macy’s accounting issue was not driving financial gain for the alleged perpetrator, it does highlight the vulnerabilities built into the logistics process.
This vulnerability is increasingly exploited by criminals, including sophisticated offshore organized crime networks.
Freight fraud demands the same level of urgency and attention as cybersecurity threats.
Much like cybercrime, freight fraud has emerged as a lucrative and disruptive field, attracting organized criminals seeking to exploit vulnerabilities within corporate systems. As companies have robustly fortified their cyberdefenses in response to digital threats, a parallel effort is required to address the growing and complex issue of freight fraud.
The strategies employed by fraudsters in the freight sector mirror those seen in cybersecurity breaches — detailed schemes aimed at bypassing systems and controls put in place to safeguard financial and operational integrity. Just as phishing or ransomware attacks can impose heavy financial and reputational costs on companies, freight fraud can lead to significant financial losses through illicit manipulation of logistics and shipping expenses, as was the case at Macy’s.
Organizations must prioritize freight fraud prevention by implementing comprehensive monitoring systems that can identify and flag irregularities as they occur, mirroring the vigilance required in cybersecurity practices. Sophisticated auditing and control mechanisms, comparable to those used in digital security, should be integral to logistics and supply chain operations. This can be achieved through employing advanced data analytics, which serve to detect patterns and anomalies indicative of fraudulent activities, just as cybersecurity systems search for digital threats.
Moreover, elevating freight fraud on the corporate agenda involves conceptual shifts in how financial oversight is conducted and framed. Board-level discussions should increasingly consider logistics and supply chain integrity as essential to overall business security, rather than delegating it as a routine operational concern. The lessons from cybersecurity investments — such as continuous process improvements, employee training on recognizing fraudulent behaviors and collaborative industry responses — are equally applicable in combating freight fraud.
Furthermore, it is essential for companies to address the enforcement gap in freight fraud penalties, advocating for tougher legal consequences to dissuade potential offenders. Building partnerships with law enforcement and industry groups can enhance deterrence efforts and provide a collective defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud attempts.
In conclusion, just as businesses have made strides to protect their digital frontiers, they must now bring freight fraud prevention to the forefront, ensuring that logistics is subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny and safeguarding. By doing so, companies can not only protect their financial health but also uphold the trust stakeholders place in their operations and governance. This proactive approach will be vital as the landscape of corporate threats continues to evolve.
The post Macy’s $151M freight accounting scandal: What happened with parcel deliveries? appeared first on FreightWaves.
