The REAL Untouchables:PWC,KPMG & Ernest & Young

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,509
I snigger to myself whenever I see the PWC bus around town.

Full of keeping up middle class appearances gimps on €17k a year doing "internships".
Im sure they wont lose any sleep on your opinions. I mean, you are on politics.ie at 3pm. Obviously you dont have much of a job if you can be doing this.
 


Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,509
Govt have been refusing to tackle anti competitive practices in accountancy and law professions for years
What anti-competitive practices exist within the law ? I really cant think of any "anti-competitive" practices.
 
Last edited:

Paddy Sarkozy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
1,830
Why is it that the three main auditing firms in this country seem totally immune from the banking collapse and recession?
Sean Fitzpatrick tells Bank of Ireland that Anglo is insolvent in the same months the genuises in Ernest & Young give the bank a clean bill of health and declare a profit of €700 million.
PWC compile a report that puts the Anglo cost to the state at €4 billion. Wrong by about €30 billion.
KPMG were audiors to INBS while Fingers was on his rampage.
What penalty have those firms incurred? They have all been rewarded significant contracts to do with NAMA and the banking crisis. PWC have just recently been awarded another contract regarding the bank crisis. While the country has been made destitute these firms are literally making a fortune at the expense of the taxpayer.
While people are getting excercised over Ivors €3,000 in dodgy phone expenses these firms are charging staff out at this amount per DAY to provide 'advice' to the state. Any search of the banks advisors will find these three gangs involved intimately and yet they are now profiting in the aftermath. Its an obscenity.
Meanwhile in other news:

Low fees blamed as NAMA contracts declined - Emmet Oliver

http://www.independent.ie/business/iris ... 63438.html

Several domestic and international accountancy practices and consultants have turned down work with NAMA, claiming the fees on offer are too low.
While the National Asset Management Agency plans to spend €215m this year on fees, several large firms have turned down assignments with the agency, particularly for work reviewing business plans of developers.
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
If fraud is found they are legally obliged to report to Gardai.

Has this ever actually happened?

And, if they do, how likely is it that the company that is employing them as its auditors will pay their audit fee?
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
Meanwhile in other news:

Low fees blamed as NAMA contracts declined - Emmet Oliver

http://www.independent.ie/business/iris ... 63438.html

Several domestic and international accountancy practices and consultants have turned down work with NAMA, claiming the fees on offer are too low.
While the National Asset Management Agency plans to spend €215m this year on fees, several large firms have turned down assignments with the agency, particularly for work reviewing business plans of developers.
There should never have been contracts awarded for this in the first place. NAMA has hired loads of well qualified people who's job is to review those plans. The idea of an outside review is just Civil Service belt and braces mentality.
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
+1 Good Post

Judging by some of the replies to your OP, in which posters defended auditors, we can now assume three things

1. Auditors have a margin of error of four billion percent

2. Auditors reports do not reflect the 'real world' , they reflect the fantasy world concocted by their clients.

3. Auditors operate in an oligopoly


I think a (4) might be Many of the posters here are members of or have links to the auditing profession.

I know exactly why one firm gets many state contracts but I know the DGDS rule.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
I think a (4) might be Many of the posters here are members of or have links to the auditing profession.

I know exactly why one firm gets many state contracts but I know the DGDS rule.
:rolleyes:How convenient. Why don't you set up your own website to broadcast your shocking revalation so?
 

Crowey

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
45
Why is it that the three main auditing firms in this country seem totally immune from the banking collapse and recession?
Sean Fitzpatrick tells Bank of Ireland that Anglo is insolvent in the same months the genuises in Ernest & Young give the bank a clean bill of health and declare a profit of €700 million.
PWC compile a report that puts the Anglo cost to the state at €4 billion. Wrong by about €30 billion.
KPMG were audiors to INBS while Fingers was on his rampage.
What penalty have those firms incurred? They have all been rewarded significant contracts to do with NAMA and the banking crisis. PWC have just recently been awarded another contract regarding the bank crisis. While the country has been made destitute these firms are literally making a fortune at the expense of the taxpayer.
While people are getting excercised over Ivors €3,000 in dodgy phone expenses these firms are charging staff out at this amount per DAY to provide 'advice' to the state. Any search of the banks advisors will find these three gangs involved intimately and yet they are now profiting in the aftermath. Its an obscenity.
Food for thought. How should they be penalised for being so badly wrong?
 

Nipper

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,526
I know very very well what auditors do. You obviously do not.

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6828/1/MPRA_paper_6828.pdf

Auditors are not expected to detect fraud unless MATERIAL TO THE ACCOUNTS.

We are not talking about embezzling the petty cash box here.

In any case I have made no allegations other than raised legitimate questions.

So on a BS of say 80bn at year end a transaction was incorrectly posted for 7.5bn , would this be Material?
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
Oh I will. Once my freedom of information requests are replied to.

Now crawl back under a calculator theres a good chap.
Why do you have to wait for FOI requests to be responded to. You said you know, present tense. And surely that implies that you have (again present tense) the evidence to back it up.

Or are you just telling fibs? Cry for attention perhaps?
 

leroy42

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
690
The problem, as mentioned earlier in the thread is the audit expectation gap. The public believe that auditors are in the role of watchdog, a financial garda investigation force if you will.

This is not the case, would we hire private firms to carry out criminal investigations? Until the government, and indeed the governments of the world, spend the money necessary to allow the revenue commissioners to carry out the yearly audit rather than allowing them to be paid for by the client to a private firm, nobody can be surprised that the audit firms aren't exactly going out of their way to point out problems, which many companies would simply ignore and move their business to another audit firm. The audit firms are providing a service, and the most basic rule of business is to keep your customers happy.

Revenue should be sent in each year to produce the independent and verified accounts of each company, with a charge levied on the companies in the same amount as they currently pay to the private audit firms.

This would ensure that all stakeholders could place more confidence in the reports while also ensuring that all taxes etc are complied with (it also would cover the normal revunue audit issues).

Since we are in the EU, it can easily be opened to allow foreign revenue to carry out test audits in different countries to ensure that the state revenue is keeping to best practice.

However, at present, it seems the government want the private companies to do their work for them, and then people are shocked when this is not the case.
 

Future

Active member
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
218
The problem, as mentioned earlier in the thread is the audit expectation gap. The public believe that auditors are in the role of watchdog, a financial garda investigation force if you will.

This is not the case, would we hire private firms to carry out criminal investigations? Until the government, and indeed the governments of the world, spend the money necessary to allow the revenue commissioners to carry out the yearly audit rather than allowing them to be paid for by the client to a private firm, nobody can be surprised that the audit firms aren't exactly going out of their way to point out problems, which many companies would simply ignore and move their business to another audit firm. The audit firms are providing a service, and the most basic rule of business is to keep your customers happy.

Revenue should be sent in each year to produce the independent and verified accounts of each company, with a charge levied on the companies in the same amount as they currently pay to the private audit firms.

This would ensure that all stakeholders could place more confidence in the reports while also ensuring that all taxes etc are complied with (it also would cover the normal revunue audit issues).

Since we are in the EU, it can easily be opened to allow foreign revenue to carry out test audits in different countries to ensure that the state revenue is keeping to best practice.

However, at present, it seems the government want the private companies to do their work for them, and then people are shocked when this is not the case.
I don't think our revenue could be trusted to do a better job!
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
Cronies

Self regulated , closed shop, politically connected etc etc.
Not only them but most of the Golden Circle at the top fo both public & private sectors who are currently using their priveleged media access to set public sector workers against private sector workers & call for a reduction in min wage, dole, etc but not their own greed. Inglorious Básterds.
 

Greener

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,509
I would suggest that you return with personal opinions on the subject. The Competition authority look at ever nook and cranny of professions to try and find "restrictive practices". What they have stated, and what you have quoted are nothing more then feigned attempts by the authority to sugges that they are doing their job. There is little or nothing there which is really anti-competitive.
 

Nipper

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,526
I would suggest that you return with personal opinions on the subject. The Competition authority look at ever nook and cranny of professions to try and find "restrictive practices". What they have stated, and what you have quoted are nothing more then feigned attempts by the authority to sugges that they are doing their job. There is little or nothing there which is really anti-competitive.

Whatever you say :)
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
Why do you have to wait for FOI requests to be responded to. You said you know, present tense. And surely that implies that you have (again present tense) the evidence to back it up.

Or are you just telling fibs? Cry for attention perhaps?
Because knowing is one thing but proof is another.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top