Talk:Big Four auditors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

I suggest a small paragraph on a comparison of the size of the four companies in terms of personnel and revenue in let's say last fiscal year (2006) or 2005 if 2006 is not available. It would make sense. Actually, it has been done in the French version. so if anybody has the time to copy/paste/translate, than it's cool.

The reference article refers to the demise of Arthur Andersen as follows: "Arthur Andersen is indicted for falsifying the finanical statements of Enron, covering up millions of dollars in losses."

In fact, Arthur Andersen was indicted for the charge of Obstruction of Justice.

\employees, with intent to cause and induce such persons to (a) withhold records, documents and other objects frinvestigations, and (b) alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal objects with intent to impair the objects, integrity and availability for use in such official proceedings."

"THE CHARGE: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE"

== Big 8 page - Clayworth]] 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Final Four

Just out of curiosity, has anybody else heard the term "Final Four" used in a derogatory manner towards the Big Four firms? I've heard it used, but have never seen it in print (thus, it wouldn't be encyclopedic).Balloonman 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

- I've seen it for sure in The Economist and IIRC some of the accountancy trade magazines. In The Economist there is an article from May 19, 2005 ("Sarbanes-Oxley A price worth paying?") which referred to the Big 4 a couple of times as the "Final Four", e.g.,"Already reduced in number by consolidation and the demise of Arthur Andersen, the big accounting firms are now known more often as the Final Four than the Big Four, since any further reduction is thought unlikely." The article goes on to discuss how the US GAO concluded there was a potentially unhealthy degree of concentration in the industry and then talks of industry groups complaining about lack of competition, so it is definitely painting a derogatory picture. The article is subscription only from their website, I found a pdf version of the article at http://www.simon.rochester.edu/pdf/sarbanes_oxley.pdf but if someone wants to traipse over to their local library, they can confirm that the article at the link is authentic. Cheers, CrossroadsMan 17/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.221.110.4 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Four in China

I removed the section under "Other Countries" about China as it contained the request "Does anyone have market share information for Big Four in China? Please Post and cite source for accuracy. Thanks!" I'm not sure if this should've been in the article or moved here. Tal Celes 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (d)evolution tree needs a graphic

I don't know the WikiMedia code well enough, but the evolution tree of how 30 companies became 4 is neat only if you can figure it out. Really we need some graphical lines, and if not, a GIF tree. --Mrcolj 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)