<?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>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:48:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Not Over Until It&#8217;s Over: Price Waterhouse India Settles 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-154438</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Not Over Until It&#8217;s Over: Price Waterhouse India Settles Satyam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 05:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-154438</guid>
		<description>[...] was circumspect in responding to Doshi&#8217;s questions &#8211; in particular about hypothetical future findings of collusion on the part of PW India or its partners &#8211; but he was emphatic: “The statement you are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] was circumspect in responding to Doshi&#8217;s questions &#8211; in particular about hypothetical future findings of collusion on the part of PW India or its partners &#8211; but he was emphatic: “The statement you are [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Price Waterhouse India Settles With Regulators But Satyam Saga Not Over - Francine McKenna - Accounting Watchdog - Forbes</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-154407</link>
		<dc:creator>Price Waterhouse India Settles With Regulators But Satyam Saga Not Over - Francine McKenna - Accounting Watchdog - Forbes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-154407</guid>
		<description>[...] may still be something to my theory b) Price Waterhouse India partners colluded with Satyam management to commit the fraud.  We shall see as lawsuits and investigations continue [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] may still be something to my theory b) Price Waterhouse India partners colluded with Satyam management to commit the fraud.  We shall see as lawsuits and investigations continue [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; PwC Trying To Buy Consulting Revenue Again With Diamond Deal</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/26/how-satyam-supported-pwcs-schizophrenic-strategy-to-reenter-the-systems-integration-business/comment-page-1/#comment-126606</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; PwC Trying To Buy Consulting Revenue Again With Diamond Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1783#comment-126606</guid>
		<description>[...] What happened after PwC bought Bearing Point and it&#8217;s &#8220;highly talented professionals with a proven track record of consistently delivering world class service&#8221; ? That&#8217;s the way PwC US Chairman Bob Moritz describes the Diamond consultants.  First, PwC rescinded all the offers to BearingPoint professionals who were on a visa of any sort.  Then, last November, they cut 300+ of their own consulting professionals to make room for the BearingPoint gurus of their new SAP/Oracle systems integration practice. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] What happened after PwC bought Bearing Point and it&#8217;s &#8220;highly talented professionals with a proven track record of consistently delivering world class service&#8221; ? That&#8217;s the way PwC US Chairman Bob Moritz describes the Diamond consultants.  First, PwC rescinded all the offers to BearingPoint professionals who were on a visa of any sort.  Then, last November, they cut 300+ of their own consulting professionals to make room for the BearingPoint gurus of their new SAP/Oracle systems integration practice. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<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>
</channel>
</rss>

