h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Big Five Accountancy Firms - A1302201
Author: Tenaka (Who now cant think of anything funny to put here) - U186694

I think this is about there. As usual any suggestion and corrections greatfully accepted....

Tenaka, this is great. Well done!

You've brought to life what is on the face of it a dull subject. You obviously know what you're talking about and it shows. I think you've pitched it just about right for length and content.

I've worked with many of the companies you mention over the years, and I've always wondered why we don't have more about industry and business in the Edited Guide.

It needs a little bit of work on the grammatical side, but I'll look at it in more detail after others have commented.

We used to refer to PriceWaterhouse Coopers by their anagram: Whoopee! crap IT resources

Icy

I agree with Icy - this is really good, but needs a bit of work to improve it. One thing that would really help is to use tags around the text instead of , so that you can break long chunks of text up into paragraphs. There are quite a few spelling and grammatical nitpicks I could list here, but you can find most of them by using the spellchecker in Microsoft Word etc.

"So are the Big Four Companies?" - is there a word missing in this subheader?

Alex

Thanks Guys.

Yes the missing word is "who".

I'll run it through MS Word now.

OK

Updated with changes to spelling and grammar, and also using para's rather than line breaks.

OK, I've had a detailed look (I only take this amount of trouble with entries which I think are fantastic, so please don't be daunted by the number of comments )

I've suggested some alternative wording where I think your points need to be clearer, but don't feel you have to accept what I've written - please rewrite them in your own words if you're more comfortable with that.

***

<> ... has been...

<> I think I prefer something like "For many years they were known as the Big Five."

<> what happened

<> Strictly, this should be Arthur Andersen. You should introduce the familiar name somewhere if you choose to use it. Their sister company Andersen Consulting was also known as Andersen's (although they are now Accenture of course)

<> in mid-2002

<> How about "Following further scandals such as Xerox's overstated profits, every client tried to distance themselves from Arthur Andersen very rapidly"

<> add space before bracket

<> Simply put, these are

<> remove space before footnote

<> Tesco

<> internal bank

<> oil

<> petro-chemical industry (and elsewhere)

<> ...to support them all

<> Hence the Big Four

<> move away from the Big Four, resulting in

<> It's a bit of a long sentence. How about something like: "Technically, no; there is a choice, and in addition, shareholders can refuse to appoint the chosen auditor at the AGM6. In this case the directors would need to appoint new auditors, and have them approved in an EGM7."

<> How about: "However, the Big Four also act as advisers and consultants, and some people feel that this creates a conflict of interest, as auditors are supposed to be independent."

<> I'm guessing that this is in the UK, in which case you should say so, and write "the Government". Do you know whether this is the situation elsewhere in the world? You might need to write something a little more global.

<> aforementioned

<> How about: "However, understanding the complexities of a large business such as the aforementioned BP takes a lot of work, and this can make changing auditors a troublesome and expensive business."


<> How about: The issue is how to achieve this without affecting the reputations and hence the share prices of the Big Four.

<> How about: "It would be difficult to force companies to choose a Second Tier auditor, as they would first need to be clearly defined. In addition, as the audit of privately owned companies is specifically for the benefit of the shareholders rather than the other stakeholders such as the public, the Government, and the company's suppliers and customers., it is not really for the Government to choose who the auditors should be."

<> How about: "Another issue is the influence these companies have..."

<> ...their...

<> This is in the UK only isn't it? What about elsewhere? Or alternatively, mention the UK.

<> their....their

<> Again, this is in the UK isn't it?

<> don't understand the "or accepting" bit, did you mean "ie. accepting"?

<> I think you need to standardise on either "Big Four" or "Big 4" throughout. What do people generally use?

<> Wasn't it "Equitable Life"?

<> world's

<> needs explaining

<> after losing...

<> grocery...banks...insurers

***

Icy

"So are the Big Four Companies?

Strictly speaking, no."

My brain hurts - in what way would adding 'who' to the question cause the answer to make any sense?

I don't think there's a "who" in there after all. It's clumsy, but it makes sense as it is.

Oh. It refers to the previous section, in a very confusing manner.

Hi Tenaka

Let us know how you're getting on with this!

Icy

Last posted 30 October. Flea Market?

I think this is a fantastic article. It needs the corrections I listed above, and just a little rewording to indicate whether it was talking about UK, US or global accounting practice. I'd prefer someone with better accountancy knowledge than me did it, but I'd pick it up if nobody else came forward.

Flea market - agree.

Added