Big thing I took away from it is that even though there are these huge lawsuits out against all the major firms, it looks like they are getting cut down to much smaller sizes. With rulings like this EY one and the BDO one, it’s going to be harder for juries to award big settlements in these trials.

Thank you for following up and clarifying your relationship with Carter. In my opinion, the context you just provided is valuable. It states why you feel you know Carter well enough to comment, but also gives readers the context to decide if we agree with you.

As I said, you’re welcome to do what you like with your blog. I, personally, find fact based reporting + your opinion as a commentator infinitely more valuable than just opinions alone.

Again, thank you.

You seem resistant to Fran’s explanation of her comment — and you are clearly misinterpreting what she wrote. (Deliberately so?)

For the third time: her comment was not a personal attack, but was instead related to her perceptions regarding any role Mr. Pate may have played in the India audit scandal. Yes, she could have been more clear. But a reasonable reading would not lead one to the conclusions you’ve apparently jumped to.

Also: I think you, like many others, seem to believe that your ideas regarding standards to be applied to a personal blog have relevance. I follow several blogs — this is one of my favorites because of my background — and let me expain to you that your perceptions regarding the “acceptable” level of discourse don’t really apply. As has been posted elsewhere, on this blog as well as other blogs, if you don’t like what you read, you are free to create your own blog where posts are “based on facts” and see how many people visit your site. Do post here to let me and others know when you’re ready for us to visit. I promise to check it out and give you objective and constructive feedback, feedback that is fact-based even though entirely based on my subjective impressions.

To conclude, you strike me as somebody with a chip on your shoulder, looking to find fault when in fact there isn’t much fault to be found. Best wishes on your blog!

– Tenacious T.

“…I have met Carter Pate and dealt with him professionally, I am entitled to comment on him personally.”

When is it that you met Carter and dealt with him professionally? In your posting on on October 16th, 2008 at 5:42 pm you said,

“Actually I never met Pate.”

It is your blog. You’re entitled to comment on whatever you like regardless of how well you know him. Just think you paint with broad brushes sometimes that make your statements incredibly misleading to those that are uninformed. In my opinion, you seek to entertain the disgruntled alumni of the Big 4 rather than inform and educate an industry.

Respectfully,

Sean

Since Pate is a senior, public leader now and I have met Carter Pate and dealt with him professionally, I am entitled to comment on him personally. What is your knowledge of him? Have you read my post about him?
http://retheauditors.com/2008/10/pwc-advisory-leadership-the-bundler-ascends/

But my comment that he is “nothing” was in reference to the PwC/Satyam scandal. I may be mistaken, but he is too new in his role and too insular to have been involved in what I will soon be saying probably really happened.
Francine

You make very interesting points about why PwC will be the next go to. I think similiar arguments could be made about each firm, but PwC, being the biggest, is the most obvious target for litigation and attacks.

As always, thanks for the input, but, lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/support_services/article6724733.ece

Oh, I’ve been pretty open about betting that it will be PwC that’s next. http://retheauditors.com/2009/05/its-a-race-to-the-finish-but-there-are-no-winners/

Before I start another round of disagreeable comments saying I just “hate” PwC the most, let me be clear. I have friends and former colleagues and former staff who worked for me at all the firms. In fact I know some who are working their heads off to try and make something of the resources PwC now has in their consulting practice. The demise of any of them would be a tragedy for two reasons: One, it could have been prevented and, two, there is no plan.

By highest levels of PwC management I meant Duffy, who was the driver and probably the too talkative blowhard at the analyst meeting last July that I cited for its Sataym references. I will be talking about more examples and I am sure he is most likely behind them. And Pujadas and Nally. And to some extent DiPiazza. Carter Pate is nothing. His glory time as a Republican bundler has passed. The firm has to be behind the Goldman Sachs/Obama team now. Pate’s previous involvement with Republicans is a liability not an asset now. Maybe he should move to Deloitte. He will probably disappear when his true colors come out in the wrong place at wrong time.

And, as I said in a recent post, the match that will light the fire to any of the four firms may come from somewhere that we can’t imagine yet. Lawsuits take a long time and only cost money. There are big ones but any of the firms can probably still handle $1 billion dollars settlement and survive. But can they handle more such as I think it will be for Satyam?

PwC has plenty of Madoff exposure and it’s growing. There have yet to be anywhere near the number of subprime/financial crisis suits that include the auditors, but they are coming. Bank of America is an accident waiting to happen and AIG still a very lucrative albatross around their neck. And then there could be something coming out of Satyam or another case such as an insider trading case that will involve the government and will force everyone to stand up and take notice because it can not be ignored. None of the firms can handle a criminal indictment.
Francine