When accounting goes unaccounted for
A thread today on Fishbowl:
That’s what PwC gets for giving its assurance and tax segments a dumb new name. This is from the same firm that gave the world Strategy&. That was and still is a dumb name. It’s like they do it on purpose.
Related articles:
PwC Is a Name You Can Trust … Or So It Claims
PwC’s New Name for Booz Worst Marketing Choice Since Coke II
Alright, alright, alright. We knew this was possible. Let's try to keep things civil. HSBC […]
It could be argued that the Big 4 is on some thin ice re: independence by trying to grow their advisory businesses. But hey, can you blame them? The audit and tax service lines alone can’t keep the lights on of a multi-billion dollar firm (but not really one firm, it’s actually a network of firms that operate under a single name, JSYK).
And besides, if you were to ask Ian Powell, the UK Chair of PwC, he’d tell you that they have to beat off clients with a stick that want that PwC experience all over them. But you know what? Independence is far too crucial tenant of the business to be jeopardized by some overeager clients that are throwing a few million clams at P. Dubs. THEY. DON’T. NEED. IT.
Mr Powell put down his binoculars to give an interview to the Financial Times where the “affable and youthful-looking” Chair dispelled any idea that the consulting business posed any risk to PwC losing its independence merit badge:
Mr Powell thinks the traditional skills of consulting can still have great value, such as in “sourcing, outsourcing, supply chain and workforce efficiency” – areas PwC has been investing in – “that can demonstrate a short term payback”.
Here again he faces controversy – persistent claims since the collapse of Enron that the Big Four’s growing consulting practices could affect their audit independence.
He responds: “We will not take on any assignment that we believe either will bring us into any independence issue, but even more so would bring us into any perceived independence issue – so we turn away millions and millions of pounds worth of business each year.”
In collegiate tournament basketball, a #16 seed upsetting a #1 is virtually unheard of. The only time it has ever happened was the Harvard Womens squad upsetting Stanford in 1998. It has never happened in the mens tournament. But in the Going Concern March Madness: Coolest Accounting Firm bracket, superior athletes, coaching and luck do not matter. Like most things in accounting, it comes down to numbers.
Late yesterday, PwC’s lead over Reznick Group completely vanished. I speculated to my parter-in-crime that based on the sheer volume coming out of the Virginia/Maryland region that it had to be some sort of a concerted effort on the part of Reznick Group. Turns out I was right; more right than I could possibly know.
This email went out to all Reznick Group offices. Yes. All.
And here’s the victory lap/dancing on PwC’s grave:
We knew America would land with Reznick Group accountants being the coolest bean counters around. With the underground movement of getting clients, family and friends to help vote along with a huge push from our India employees motivating a billion voters, hard to stop the Reznick Group momentum.
Bring on the next contender!
So for the firms left – this is what you’re up against. I’m not suggesting that you should undertake similar efforts but that’s because I have to remain neutral in this regard.
It should be noted that based on the numbers accumulated by Vizu, it appears very few Reznick people bothered voting on any of the other match-ups. This isn’t exactly the kind of participation we had in mind but since most of RG is probably new to the site, we’ll let it slide. The question now is whether this amounts to a “Reznick win” or a “PwC loss.” Please discuss. We’ll updated you with the match-ups for the second round later today and the voting rolling tomorrow.