<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Satyam Supported PwC&#8217;s Schizophrenic Strategy To Reenter The Systems Integration Business</title>
	<atom:link href="http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/</link>
	<description>The Business of the Big 4 Audit Firms</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:00:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Francine</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-56264</link>
		<dc:creator>Francine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-56264</guid>
		<description>@Peoplewhochange

Thanks for your insight.

The article tells the story of how PwC US used Satyam to rebuild its systems integration practice and possibly teamed up with PwC India and Satyam to sell Satyam&#039;s services to their clients, audit and non-audit, outside of India.  Any kind of business relationship like this is forbidden under US independence rules under the SEC, given the fact that Satyam was a US listed audit client. PwC US technology skills were pretty much on-existent, save a few people and practices, after the IBM sale and they were forbidden to provide any &quot;technical&quot; services until after the IBM non-compete was up, summer of 2007.
Francine</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Peoplewhochange</p>
<p>Thanks for your insight.</p>
<p>The article tells the story of how PwC US used Satyam to rebuild its systems integration practice and possibly teamed up with PwC India and Satyam to sell Satyam&#8217;s services to their clients, audit and non-audit, outside of India.  Any kind of business relationship like this is forbidden under US independence rules under the SEC, given the fact that Satyam was a US listed audit client. PwC US technology skills were pretty much on-existent, save a few people and practices, after the IBM sale and they were forbidden to provide any &#8220;technical&#8221; services until after the IBM non-compete was up, summer of 2007.<br />
Francine</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peoplewhochange</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-56130</link>
		<dc:creator>Peoplewhochange</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-56130</guid>
		<description>Well. let me share a more informed perspective, truth be said it is not known to many that PwC India has substantial technical capabilities in the technology field. I know this as I have many friends there. The fact is that after the IBM deal the technical capabilities of PwC India  in the software space were intact because one of the few countries which held out partially from the deal if I am informed well  is India &amp; Israel. I believe a compromise was worked out which allowed PwC India to service all technology related contracts of US$400mn and below were allowed to be pursued by PwC India and that for them was almost there entire practice. So my guess is that in ERP and other space the capabilities of PwC India in the technology space were similar to or more enhanced than that of Satyam. Therefore i feel there is little substance in trying to link up any strategic partnership between PwC and satyam for any reason for audit failure. In fact i understand PwC India Technology Advisory Practice heavily competes with Satyam, Infosys and Accenture for consulting contracts in the technology space. So , if there was some linkage with Satyam it must have been with another member firm of PwC outside India like say PwC US which is run independent of PwC India.

The other thing which may come as a surprise to some of the readers of this blog is that my understanding is that PwC India folks are pretty distressed with being viewed as having some substantiality commonality of interest with PwC US as they have no common ownership and often the relationship between the two firms can be strained as they pursue there own respective economic interests/goals. The only thing that is probably common is that they hold out to the world that they operate under one common name with some governing structure which ensures commonality of standards.

The real reason why the Audit failure probably happened and may happen again in India is that due to the competitive nature of pricing by local firms the general level of audit fee in India is quite low, vis-a-vis the risk being carried. The audit fee for satyam was on the higher end from an Indian standpoint but still i guess would not even cover the salary compensation cost of the team. When you consider that other audits that the firm would be carrying would be even more unprofitable you will proabably reach to a conclusion that Audit arms of Indian Big 4 firms are bleeding and that means, there staff and partners are grossly overworked, probably underpaid vis-a-vis other comparable jobs like strategic consulting. I did a dip stick survey a typical manager in a Big 4 assurance firm in India is paid around INR 1.5 million (US$30K) while a similarly experienced Manager at Bain&amp;Co or Mckinsey in india is paid INR 7 million (US$150K). What do you think all the auditors in these firms are doing trying to focus on enhancing personal skills and running through interview processes through the year to be accepted by a White shoe firm or PE fund or an investment bank to make real money. The real problem in India is to increase salaries in audit firms to be competitive with the well paying consulting, PE fund type jobs once that happens you will attract better talent, the audit teams will have more interest in their jobs and audit will be a sought after career, the issue are systemic its just that it has come up in one case, but my guess is that it will happen again either with PwC or some other Audit firm Big 4 or otherwise..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well. let me share a more informed perspective, truth be said it is not known to many that PwC India has substantial technical capabilities in the technology field. I know this as I have many friends there. The fact is that after the IBM deal the technical capabilities of PwC India  in the software space were intact because one of the few countries which held out partially from the deal if I am informed well  is India &amp; Israel. I believe a compromise was worked out which allowed PwC India to service all technology related contracts of US$400mn and below were allowed to be pursued by PwC India and that for them was almost there entire practice. So my guess is that in ERP and other space the capabilities of PwC India in the technology space were similar to or more enhanced than that of Satyam. Therefore i feel there is little substance in trying to link up any strategic partnership between PwC and satyam for any reason for audit failure. In fact i understand PwC India Technology Advisory Practice heavily competes with Satyam, Infosys and Accenture for consulting contracts in the technology space. So , if there was some linkage with Satyam it must have been with another member firm of PwC outside India like say PwC US which is run independent of PwC India.</p>
<p>The other thing which may come as a surprise to some of the readers of this blog is that my understanding is that PwC India folks are pretty distressed with being viewed as having some substantiality commonality of interest with PwC US as they have no common ownership and often the relationship between the two firms can be strained as they pursue there own respective economic interests/goals. The only thing that is probably common is that they hold out to the world that they operate under one common name with some governing structure which ensures commonality of standards.</p>
<p>The real reason why the Audit failure probably happened and may happen again in India is that due to the competitive nature of pricing by local firms the general level of audit fee in India is quite low, vis-a-vis the risk being carried. The audit fee for satyam was on the higher end from an Indian standpoint but still i guess would not even cover the salary compensation cost of the team. When you consider that other audits that the firm would be carrying would be even more unprofitable you will proabably reach to a conclusion that Audit arms of Indian Big 4 firms are bleeding and that means, there staff and partners are grossly overworked, probably underpaid vis-a-vis other comparable jobs like strategic consulting. I did a dip stick survey a typical manager in a Big 4 assurance firm in India is paid around INR 1.5 million (US$30K) while a similarly experienced Manager at Bain&amp;Co or Mckinsey in india is paid INR 7 million (US$150K). What do you think all the auditors in these firms are doing trying to focus on enhancing personal skills and running through interview processes through the year to be accepted by a White shoe firm or PE fund or an investment bank to make real money. The real problem in India is to increase salaries in audit firms to be competitive with the well paying consulting, PE fund type jobs once that happens you will attract better talent, the audit teams will have more interest in their jobs and audit will be a sought after career, the issue are systemic its just that it has come up in one case, but my guess is that it will happen again either with PwC or some other Audit firm Big 4 or otherwise..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; McKenna Quoted In The Guardian</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-9462</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; McKenna Quoted In The Guardian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-9462</guid>
		<description>[...] the link to my posts on PwC/Satyam, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the link to my posts on PwC/Satyam, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Dreaming Of India: PwC and Satyam</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-8209</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Dreaming Of India: PwC and Satyam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-8209</guid>
		<description>[...] Finally, I have identified more examples of potential independence violations on the part of PwC with regard to Satyam like the one I described in the PwC/Idearc/Satyam engagement. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Finally, I have identified more examples of potential independence violations on the part of PwC with regard to Satyam like the one I described in the PwC/Idearc/Satyam engagement. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Satyam Back in Business &#171; Zeropoint Field</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7139</link>
		<dc:creator>Satyam Back in Business &#171; Zeropoint Field</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-7139</guid>
		<description>[...] in the systems integrator business, when officially it had to stay out of it. As Francine McKenna writes: PwC skirted the issue of the non-compete for a while by developing Advisory (consulting) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in the systems integrator business, when officially it had to stay out of it. As Francine McKenna writes: PwC skirted the issue of the non-compete for a while by developing Advisory (consulting) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Satyam Back in Business &#171; campo del punto cero</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7138</link>
		<dc:creator>Satyam Back in Business &#171; campo del punto cero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-7138</guid>
		<description>[...] in the systems integrator business, when officially it had to stay out of it. As Francine McKenna writes: PwC skirted the issue of the non-compete for a while by developing Advisory (consulting) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in the systems integrator business, when officially it had to stay out of it. As Francine McKenna writes: PwC skirted the issue of the non-compete for a while by developing Advisory (consulting) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-6909</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-6909</guid>
		<description>@15 - advisory utilization may be lower because we charge for hours actually worked not hours we happen to be present.  Let me be more specific -- if our staff searches the web they cannot charge for that time.  If the computer is crunching the numbers for hours on end - the staff cannot charge the hours.  Also note, that when there is a large job we are there 24/7 as necessary.  We do not have a busy season - all seasons are busy.  More specifically, we do not have a slow season when taking vacation time and working sane hours is possible.  More importantly - the firms impose all the same practices on us as they do on the audit teams.  For example -- camping out in our permanently assigned cubes... given most of our work is performed in the office we need those permanent cubes... and while my practice has mostly gotten them -- we have staff we cannot find because they are roaming around in a different cube everyday.  For example -- recognition and promotion is based on the same measures as audit rather than the measures that make sense for our practices.  For example -- we cannot get the equipment we need without jumping stupid hoops that relate to audit where all you need is a lightly loaded laptop.  For example -- perks the firm gives are designed towards audit and we rarely can take advantage of them.

And be careful what you say -- as Advisory has for years carried their weight and even more weight than audit.  A team means that we carry each other and work with each other.  At this moment in time you might be real careful as the odds are high that if the two groups separate it will be advisory that survives the economy and advisory that doesn&#039;t get sued for audit failures and such.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@15 &#8211; advisory utilization may be lower because we charge for hours actually worked not hours we happen to be present.  Let me be more specific &#8212; if our staff searches the web they cannot charge for that time.  If the computer is crunching the numbers for hours on end &#8211; the staff cannot charge the hours.  Also note, that when there is a large job we are there 24/7 as necessary.  We do not have a busy season &#8211; all seasons are busy.  More specifically, we do not have a slow season when taking vacation time and working sane hours is possible.  More importantly &#8211; the firms impose all the same practices on us as they do on the audit teams.  For example &#8212; camping out in our permanently assigned cubes&#8230; given most of our work is performed in the office we need those permanent cubes&#8230; and while my practice has mostly gotten them &#8212; we have staff we cannot find because they are roaming around in a different cube everyday.  For example &#8212; recognition and promotion is based on the same measures as audit rather than the measures that make sense for our practices.  For example &#8212; we cannot get the equipment we need without jumping stupid hoops that relate to audit where all you need is a lightly loaded laptop.  For example &#8212; perks the firm gives are designed towards audit and we rarely can take advantage of them.</p>
<p>And be careful what you say &#8212; as Advisory has for years carried their weight and even more weight than audit.  A team means that we carry each other and work with each other.  At this moment in time you might be real careful as the odds are high that if the two groups separate it will be advisory that survives the economy and advisory that doesn&#8217;t get sued for audit failures and such.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RE:Anon123</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-6889</link>
		<dc:creator>RE:Anon123</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-6889</guid>
		<description>@15...Anon123 on May 28th, 2009 at 12:54 am said:
 
Of course many of us in the big 4 assurance practices wait for the “consultants” or “advisory” groups to pull their own weight...the advisory groups are the most profitable part of the firm...although firm leadership has lost sight of this, I still believe in profits over revenues.

They’re paid more than attest service staff....because there are boutique firms that drive up the salaries in the consulting industry...you picked the wrong career...unless you make partner

Their staff utilization tends to be in the 40% range (manager/partner utilization is the most USELESS metric ever…as these guys/gals control the damn budget and thus fatten their own schedules as needed). Where as attest staff remain in the 80%-90% range...yes...in the 80-90%range...at 15% realization...some advisory jobs run at near 200% realization.  When was the last time assurance billed an associate at $325/hr for every hour worked and got paid for it?  One hour at those rates equals 10 of yours...and my utilization has never been below 75% in 8 years

In fact we all refer to them as benchwarmers. They get mighty angry when a lowly attest manager books one of their manager offices. Since they camp out in them day in and day out they might as well be permanently assigned offices as they seem to want...you must be refering to the ones leaving recently due to &quot;performance related issues.&quot;  they should be out doing something or sellling something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@15&#8230;Anon123 on May 28th, 2009 at 12:54 am said:</p>
<p>Of course many of us in the big 4 assurance practices wait for the “consultants” or “advisory” groups to pull their own weight&#8230;the advisory groups are the most profitable part of the firm&#8230;although firm leadership has lost sight of this, I still believe in profits over revenues.</p>
<p>They’re paid more than attest service staff&#8230;.because there are boutique firms that drive up the salaries in the consulting industry&#8230;you picked the wrong career&#8230;unless you make partner</p>
<p>Their staff utilization tends to be in the 40% range (manager/partner utilization is the most USELESS metric ever…as these guys/gals control the damn budget and thus fatten their own schedules as needed). Where as attest staff remain in the 80%-90% range&#8230;yes&#8230;in the 80-90%range&#8230;at 15% realization&#8230;some advisory jobs run at near 200% realization.  When was the last time assurance billed an associate at $325/hr for every hour worked and got paid for it?  One hour at those rates equals 10 of yours&#8230;and my utilization has never been below 75% in 8 years</p>
<p>In fact we all refer to them as benchwarmers. They get mighty angry when a lowly attest manager books one of their manager offices. Since they camp out in them day in and day out they might as well be permanently assigned offices as they seem to want&#8230;you must be refering to the ones leaving recently due to &#8220;performance related issues.&#8221;  they should be out doing something or sellling something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; PwC Global Board: &#8220;Risk And Quality Top Priorities&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-6764</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; PwC Global Board: &#8220;Risk And Quality Top Priorities&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-6764</guid>
		<description>[...] they&#8217;re back&#8230; Sort of. As was chronicled in this post, it looks like they took a short cut that may cost them the whole enchilada.  They gave an audit [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] they&#8217;re back&#8230; Sort of. As was chronicled in this post, it looks like they took a short cut that may cost them the whole enchilada.  They gave an audit [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Irregular Enterprise mobile edition</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-6616</link>
		<dc:creator>Irregular Enterprise mobile edition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-6616</guid>
		<description>[...] to PwC. Her view is that PwC is most definitely on the hook. One of the pillars of her argument are the links between PwC as auditors and consultants to/with Satyam. Under SEC rules the consulting links would create major problems for PwC as auditors. Analyst [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to PwC. Her view is that PwC is most definitely on the hook. One of the pillars of her argument are the links between PwC as auditors and consultants to/with Satyam. Under SEC rules the consulting links would create major problems for PwC as auditors. Analyst [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
