Comments on: Hey PwC – Practice What You Preach

By: Francine McKenna

Francine McKenna — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:01:00 +0000

Oh, and I see what you mean about the purpose of the document. “The purpose of this document is to assist management and the board of directors of public companies in preparing for the annual meeting and to enable them to provide informed responses to shareholder questions. This document contains examples of questions that might be asked, based on those asked at annual meetings in recent years, and considering current events.” Even though as a public accounting firm their first priority is supposed to be the shareholders, they have put the emphasis on defending their real client, management and the board. Just shows to go you where their priorites lie. They’re those of a business not a partnership consisting of professionals.

By: Francine McKenna

Francine McKenna — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:51:00 +0000

I probably know the people who wrote these questions, too. I rarely critique an individual other than someone in firm leadership, since individuals, even partners, are just revenue producing bodies for the firms. They have a very limited influence on the business of doing the firms’ business and a very short shelf life. It’s the leadership, those that actually run the firms and understand and have control over the business of the firm that I’m interested in. In my over one year of writing the blog, I have neither received a call from anyone’s lawyer nor have I run out of things to write about. The firms just keep on giving. I don’t have to disclose any confidential information I may have gleaned from working at PwC or KPMG, for example. I just wait for that issue to blow up publicly and they always eventually do. Bitter? On the contrary. I have the freedom to put my name on my opinions. Do you? As far as the value of my comments, I let my traffic speak for itself. In fact, PwC professionals, from all over the world, are my number one corporate visitor. How do you like them turkeys?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:46:00 +0000

I know the people who helped write these questions for the firm and you are officially an idiot. They are not for the purposes you claim they are for. I think you are one of those losers that couldn’t hack it in Big 4 and you are bitter. Your posts are poorly written full of misrepresentations and exaggerations. Please just stop writing things you don’t know about before someone sues you for slander.

By: Francine McKenna

Francine McKenna — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:54:00 +0000

Yes, these are great questions. They’re great for an investor doing due diligence on a company, for a professional services firm qualifying a client for a significant engagement such as an audit, an investigation or internal audit or SOx outsourcing. The list is very long and comprehensive. There are great professionals at all the firms who know what the right thing to do is. Unfortunately, the Big 4 are no longer professional services firms but profit seeking global businesses. Money rules, not doing right by your clients and your profession.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:30:00 +0000

I would give PwC some credit for publishing these questions. The answers may not always benefit the incumbent auditor.