Is it just me, or is there a very high positive correlation between Arthur Andersen's present or former clients and dodgy books?

>Is it just me, or is there a very high positive correlation between Arthur Andersen's present or former clients and dodgy books?

Perhaps it is just because I live in Houston, where Arthur Andersen was just CONVICTED, but I have to say I this is a bit like noticing a high correlation between wetness and water.

From the Waste Managment case years ago, through Enron, and now into all the other fiascos, the fact that Arthur Andersen was the common denominator all these cases has been the talk of the buisness radio (and buisness) for months now.

Don't feel bad, I hear they are shutting down operations the end of the month.

>Is it just me, or is there a very high positive correlation between Arthur Andersen's present or former clients and dodgy books?

Perhaps it is just because I live in Houston, where Arthur Andersen was just CONVICTED, but I have to say I this is a bit like noticing a high correlation between wetness and water.

From the Waste Managment case years ago, through Enron, and now into all the other fiascos, the fact that Arthur Andersen was the common denominator all these cases has been the talk of the buisness radio (and buisness) for months now.

Don't feel bad, I hear they are shutting down operations the end of the month.

Actually, I was wondering about this. I used to work for both Price Waterhouse and Arthur Andersen (not in audit, but systems consulting). The truth is, there isn't (wasn't) much difference among all the Big Five/Six firms. The same pool of people interviewed and worked there after college, and there was a lively flow of people moving back and forth among all of the companies. They had the same techniques and methodologies and processes (but with different acronyms).

I think if you ask anyone who worked for these companies, they'll feel the same way.

So it's more that there's a high correlation between companies that are getting caught with shady accounting and Andersen.

Which is scary, because of what it suggests might be true about the clients of the rest of the companies.

Actually, I think it may be more that any company with Anderson as the auditor gets a lot of media play. Deloitte and KPMG have also been involved with similar scandals, but they didn't get much play outside the financial press. (Don't ask me what the companies were; I can't remember. But they were similar in magnitude and scope.)

No Rand its not just you. Gerald makes some fair points which get back to the sad fact that we have a federally enforced oligopoly whose campaign contributions corrupt the system (sounding like McCain, yikes). However, the big ones, (Waste Mgmt, Enron, Wcom, and others have been on Anderson's watch). Unfortunately, the benefits of bankrupting Anderson will be about outweighed by going from a big 5 to a big 4 with that much less compettitive pressure for reliability.