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

Entry: The 'Big Five' Accountancy Firms - A19876738
Author: Icy North - U225620

Flea Market rescue

Original Entry: The Big Five Accountancy Firms - A1302201
Author: Tenaka - U186694
Original PR thread: F151553?thread=3615500
Flea Market thread: F74125?thread=3831830&latest=1

I've tidied it up, clarified a couple of things (including replacing the Xerox scandal with Worldcom), and added a Monty Python blockquote to lighten it up a little. If it doesn't work, then let me know and I'll remove it.

I'm not an accountant, so I would particularly welcome comments from those with some experience in this field.

Icy

Hi. I remember this from the first time it was around - I never quite made it to read it all then

I can't judge if something is lacking or not correct with the content, so here are just a few 'optical' nitpicks:


>>US telecomms giant Worldcom<< ...telecom's giant..?

>>The problem is that to audit a company the size of say BP10 needs vast resources<<
I think you're lacking your sentence object here, should be something like:...BP, it needs...

Thanks Bel - does that make more sense?

Yes. Domn't listen to me, I had problems with the language today.

Hi Icy,

Cool article!

Could do with some explanation of what 'second tier' means - I thought it might be a 'backup' accountant, but having read the full thing it seems to be non-big-4.

'on for example working practice' - 'on, for example, working practice' .

So are the Big Four Companies? - are they what? Might be easier to read as 'Are the Big Four Classified as Companies?'

firm and the partners However - missing a full stop

available world wide to audit - hyphen needed (I think).

You might put in something about why audits need to be done in the first place (ie to protect shareholders from Enron-style events).

Good article though. I do a lot of work with one of these guys and I still learnt a lot from reading this!

Gif

I'd better do this right!

Exceptionally well written...though not for you, of course! .

I humbly request you cast a kind eye over the following observations:

Arthur Andersen 2nd para:
<[....] company admitted in 2001 that it had falsified its earnings since 1997 (just moments after its directors had sold their shareholdings).> (Possibly ambiguous - Do you think it would be clearer if the info in parenthesis came immediately after '2001'? Also, since it's a highly pertinent point, could it fall within commas instead of brackets?)

So what do they do and what makes them the BIG four?: (Put simply, you've simply put 'Put simply' twice...)

(Is that a sufficiently international reference? Don't ask me...I shop at Lidl.)

Isn't this a bad thing? last para: (practices)?

So are the Big Four Companies?: [businesses] (I'm pretty sure of that one.)

(I think you'll find that it's the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, but that each entity is a 'Limited Liability Partnership'.)

So what for the Future? end 1st para: [Full stop & a space missing after footnote]

Last para: [worldwide]

Last para: [multinationals]


..............

I missed your post, Gif.

"So are the Big Four Companies? - are they what? Might be easier to read as 'Are the Big Four Classified as Companies?'"

Partnerships are companies too. The important question is: Are they Limited Liability Companies?

Thanks both - much appreciated, and very helpful indeed!

As you know, I didn't write the original. I didn't want to tinker with Tenaka's words much - as you said, it was very well written, considering it's such a complex subject.

I've made those corrections, except for the Tesco vs Spar comparison. This is interesting. Their international credentials aren't a problem - Spar are worldwide, and Tesco even opened recently in Beijing. It's just that I found out Spar is actually 2nd to Tesco in the UK, in terms of transactions. I think Tenaka wanted something a little smaller. I'd use Lidl instead, but they're huge in Germany. I think I'll stick to Spar, as they have a 'cornershop' implication.

I'll think about a sentence on why we need audits. I should probably mention Sarbanes Oxley too - today's legacy of these scandals. Sarbox would make the entry close more smoothly, too.

I'll post back if I can think of something which fits.

Icy

But: (Shouldn't the '17' be placed before the full stop?)

And: <'Are the Big Four Classified as Companies?> (A company is a commercial business, so of course the fat four are companies - that heading should be changed. Also, there's an extraneous inverted comma on the left.......I won't tell you what to do with it...


.................

(I deleted it, of course!) Still pondering those additions I mentioned earlier...

OK, I've added a footnote on why we have financial audits, and a new section at the end on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

I'm going to lie down now.

Icy

I am delighted about footnote #19

This is teetering on the precipice of Mount Readiness. However, could you possibly work a few of those footnotes back into the text?

OK, I'll have a look.

*mutter* Brain the size of a planet and they ask me to sub-edit out footnotes.

OK, I've removed twelve of them. I had to stop there, I had a pain in the diodes down my left-hand side.

Back to you.

Glad to see you left my favourite footnote in.

I got bored by then

Thought it was the pain in your diodes that kept you from going on.

Yes, it bores me.

Really sorry to hear that, Marvin.