Accounting Firms

Would the Big Four Lose One More? By Neil More Eight becomes Six, Six becomes Five, Five becomes Four, Four becomes Three? Well, for those of you who are not well versed with the top four Accounting firms, this would sound like a Montessori school lesson.
Big4.com-a website catering to Big4 alumni- receives periodic updates on the latest news and trends at the Big Four accounting firms. The present Big 4 firms were all a part of the previous Big 8. The Big 8 term reflected the extensive dominance of the eight largest accounting firms in the world. Mergers of regional accounting firms led to the birth of Big Eight.
The Big Eight companies were-· Arthur Andersen· Arthur Young· Coopers Lybrand· Ernst Ernst (later became Ernst & Whitney)· Haskins Sells (later became Deloitte, Haskins, Sells)· Peat Marwick International (later became KPMG)· Price Waterhouse· Touche Ross
In 1989, the Big Eight became Big Six when Ernst Whitney had a merger with Arthur Young to form Ernst Young. Deloitte, Haskins Sells merged with Coopers Lybrand to form Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
The Big 5 descended from Big Six. Big Five Firms were the world’s top five companies with disparate areas of specialization. They were-· Arthur Andersen· Deloitte & Touche· Ernst & Young· KPMG· PricewaterhouseCoopers
The collapse of Enron in 2001 caused Arthur Andersen to step out of the erstwhile "Big Five" Group. After the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) revealed off-balance sheet costs-undisclosed losses of hundreds of millions of dollars-Arthur Andersen Consulting bowed out of the Big Five League.
Close on the heels of Arthur Andersen’s downfall, KPMG, the New York based accounting firm faces indictment charges for allegedly selling Tax shelters. As the Justice Department considers the penalties for KPMG, things might go awry if the firm is convicted of obstruction of justice.
Reforms like Sarbanes-Oxley have stressed the importance of complete audits to expose and mitigate fraudulent behavior. Now, the onus might, as well, shift on the three major auditing firms as KPMG faces indictment charges. If guilty, KPMG would no longer be able to certify the audit results. Consequently, their customer base might shift to other accounting giants.
According to many accounting experts, indicting KPMG or any other Big Four accounting firm would damage accounting relationships and eventually lead to loss of jobs. The absence of KPMG would mean less competition, although firms might attract more business and clients. This destructive option can be replaced with a sensible alternative- indicting partners and other employees of firms who are found guilty. Supporting this ideology, KPMG have started the process of terminating employees connected with the tax-shelter scandal and envisaged policy changes to eradicate unethical business practices.
While it’s true that punitive action should be employed if and when unlawful business practices are followed, it’s not necessary for KPMG to face the axe. If these giants are cut to size frequently, then people would have to run from pillar to post searching for efficient business partners. Reforms like Sarbanes-Oxley are the order of the day. Sarbanes-Oxley specifies that rotation of audit partners (on a periodic basis) regulates any congenial chemistry between executives and auditors. Implementing and following these policies would enable best practices in business environs and facilitate transparent auditing processes.
Hi. I am Neil and am a Big4.com Alumni Member. I have been writing articles since my college days. Would love to interact and share my articles with other writers.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Neil_More