Talk:Accounting scandals

message: Since it's about more than 2002, I moved it to accounting scandals.--Jerryseinfeld 06:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Sunbeam? Is that Sunbeam Products ()?--Jerryseinfeld 07:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies 

message: Is this supposed to be a list of accounting scandals, or about accounting scandals ?  Is this supposed to be dealing with accounting scandals within the USA, or in general ?  Either the article needs expanding greatly, or else the title needs changing.  Can someone please clarify, so that further changes can be made in the right direction, whichever that is ? Thanks
: I concur. As a former Arthur Andersen auditor (from long ago) and a consultant who worked on the Worldcom fraud investigation, I have taken a strong interest in the recent accounting accounting scandels and would gladly contribute more here if more detailed information is intended or desired. Thoughts?
::The article certainly needs work.  It started out as Accounting scandals of 2002, and was recast as a broader article, but the 2002 bias is still there.  At Accounting scandals#2002 scandals is a laundry list of companies that were in the news in a negative light.  Global Crossing, Enron, WorldCom and others were genuine scandals, but ImClone? K-mart?  They had their ups and down and were friends of Martha Stewart, but were they cooking the books?  Why is Sunbeam Products listed?  To my knowledge, it was an old manufacturing company which couldn't compete in a world where anything can be made in China for 3¢ a unit.  The company shut down, someone bought the name in bankruptcy court, and now puts that name on products made in China for 3¢ a unit. That's not what the article at Sunbeam Products says (it implies the same company is still in business), but there is not a whisper of accounting scandal on that page either.  No WP:BLPs are involved, but this article is libelous. — Randall Bart (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added references for fraud at ImClone, KMart, and Sunbeam. Jaufrec (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the article for ? 

message: This is a self-published fiction book with little relevance to a factual article on accounting subjects:
"Peter J. Ponzio, Children of the Night, Xlibris, 2007, ". Since the edit I made to remove the citation was reverted, I have started a discussion on its inclusion here. Any comments? Flowanda | Talk 08:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly, I dought any book marketed as a work of fiction counts as a reliable source. Jon 16:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction book as reference 

message: Somebody should definitly include the 2006 Siemens Corruption Scandal which has been one of the major scandals in that regard (total fees of 1.6 billion US$!!) VonLoyola 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siemens 2006 Scandal 

message: I spent time editing this article to include iSoft on this list.  iSoft was a fraud greater than many on the list.  Why was my edit reverted?  iSoft must be recorded (discovered in 2009) at the end of the list of accounting scandals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.228.143 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  iSoft 

message: See:
* On Point: The Lessons Of MF Global
Jon Corzine was governor of New Jersey, a US Senator, and CEO of Goldman Sachs. You might have thought those roles would wise him up. But last week he was sitting before a Congressional committee trying to explain how he took over MF Global – after all that experience – bet big and risky, lost billions, and misplaced – misplaced – $1.2 billion in client funds that were not supposed to be touched. "I simply do not know where the money is," he said. One point two billion dollars.
---Radical Mallard (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2011 Scandal: MF Global 

message: Miss Barlow left in 1979, before the worst. Her name is sometimes spelled Barlowe. The two met as IOS salesmen at one time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.112.240 (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For further information, see Anthony Barrowclough.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.108 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This tells of the Barlow Clowes affair.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.108 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, there is no separate article on Barlow Clowes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.72 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An article has now been written on Barlow Clowes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.216.69 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early leaving 

message: Chikpet saree traders is not an accountancy firm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.72 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not immediately clear what that entire line refers to; I've removed it for now.  No objections to re-adding if sourcing is provided. Kuru (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chikpet 

message: The "Causes" section in this article makes the claim that government organizations have been sold off to private companies and then improved for the sole purpose of proving that the the private sector is more efficient at operating organizations than the government.  
"Similar issues occur when a publicly held asset or non-profit organization undergoes privatization. Top executives often reap tremendous monetary benefits when a government-owned or non-profit entity is sold to private hands. Just as in the example above, they can facilitate this process by making the entity appear to be in financial crisis – this reduces the sale price (to the profit of the purchaser), and makes non-profits and governments more likely to sell. It can also contribute to a public perception that private entities are more efficiently run, thereby reinforcing the political will to sell off public assets. Again, due to asymmetric information, policy makers and the general public see a government-owned firm that was a financial 'disaster' – miraculously turned around by the private sector (and typically resold) within a few years."
That specific paragraph attempts to assign a motive and conclude that the private sector is acting fraudulently without citing a single source.  The paragraph is politically biased and should be removed or the sources of a specific fraud case need to be cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.24.34 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the npov tag to the specific section you've indicated.  I've also tagged much of the material there for references - there does appear to be quite a bit of commentary there.  I've removed a paragraph that has been tagged as needing refs for six months. Kuru (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ten years later, this section still has a POV tag. Is this section still biased today? Jarble (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the "Causes" Section 

message: Dr. Favero has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Favero has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Giovanni Favero, 2013. "Foreign family business and capital flight. The case for a fraud to fail," Working Papers 27, Department of Management, Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Favero's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Accounting scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100105115438/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-executive-sentenced-to-4-apf-14168709.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-executive-sentenced-to-4-apf-14168709.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Accounting scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111201059/http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1511/index.do to http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1511/index.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715175315/http://www.revenuerecognition.com/content/experts/8976.asp to http://www.revenuerecognition.com/content/experts/8976.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406172054/http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2006/07/how_stuart_wolf.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2006/07/how_stuart_wolf.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121085959/http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2003/20030218_Headline01_Staff.htm to http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/2003/20030218_Headline01_Staff.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8745be6a-09af-11e1-a2bb-00144feabdc0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi,
You have deleted the 2017 Academy Awards#Best Picture announcement from the Accounting Scandal list.  I have reversed this for the following reasons.
“There are no accidents.”
The scandal reminds me of a line in a movie called “The Sweet Hereafter”.  It involves a lawyer who is representing the parents of children killed in a school bus accident.  At one point in the movie the lawyer is trying to convince the parents to sue by saying “There are no accidents.”
While I understand that this scandal is much different than the other scandals listed it should be included on the list for the following reasons:
* 1)	it is a scandal
* 2)	the scandal relates to an accounting firm, PwC
* 3)	the scandal involves the publication of false information
* 4)	PwC was selected to manage the voting process and distribution of the voting results because of their accounting and auditing expertise as well as their perceived ability to ensure that the information published is accurate.  They failed.
Accounting involves creating and reporting of accurate information.  Generally accounting involves financial information but it also involves other business information. PwC is an auditor.  Their role is to ensure the accuracy of the information published.
Accountants and auditor have developed many techniques to ensure errors like this do not occur.  For example:
* a)	segregation of duties.  The auditor does not do the accounting, the auditor merely reviews the work of other accountants.
* b)	there are typically multiple levels of review
* c)	labeling systems are used such as numbering invoices 
* d)	systems are designed and developed to avoid mistakes.  For example, computer systems will automatically flag invoices that appear to be duplicates.
Regarding the error at the Academy Awards, many of these basic procedures were not followed:
:1)	The partner distributed the envelope himself.  It would have been better if two PwC employees worked together to distribute each envelope; one to select the envelope and a second to confirm that the selection was correct.  (There were two PwC employees distributing the envelope but they were not working side-by-side.  There should have been four PwC employe, two on each side of the stage.)
:(It is inappropriate to blame Warren Beatty for the error.)
:2)	PwC did not have a system for managing the envelopes.  Apparently there were duplicate envelopes for each award but there was no system of ensuring the extra envelopes were disposed of properly.  PwC could have easy implemented a system whereby all extra envelopes were disposed of immediately.  The error occurred because a duplicate envelope was distributed.
:Having systems like this are common in accounting.  Companies do not want to pay invoices twice.
:3)	The envelopes could have been numbered and the PwC partner could have maintained a list of envelopes and the associated presenter.  Using such control lists is standard practice in accounting.
:The advantage of numbering the envelopes rather than just having the name of the award is that the envelopes would be in a sequential order.  There would be no doubt about order of the distribution.  Anything that simplifies the system reduces the risk of error.
:Invoices are typically number sequentially to ensure they are correctly processed. (No duplication and no missing invoices.)
:4)	PwC is an audit firm, not an accounting firm.  They should not have been managing the voting process or distributing the envelopes.  Instead they should have been overseeing the voting process and overseeing the distribution.  
:This is an important difference.  It is much easier to see mistakes if you are not busy performing the work.  Regarding the distribution of the envelopes, an employee from the Academy could have selected the envelope from the briefcase and then had the PwC partners confirm the envelope was correct.
:This may seem to be excessively cautious but the mistake that was made demonstrates that it is necessary to be extra, extra, extra careful.
:5)	The PwC partner was not focused on his work.  There are reports that he was taking photographs and sending Tweets around the same time as the error was made.  This contributes the scandalous nature of the error.
:The PwC partner is highly paid.  The charge out rates for partners is over $1,000 / hour!  His only responsibility at the ceremony was to ensure the information published was accurate.  He failed to do so. WSDavitt (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll read this when I get a block of free time; you've taken the time to write a thoughtful reason and I don't want to short change that.  However, please note that my objection was compound - you also introduced a duplicate entry in the list during your addition.  Please correct that; I presume it was an accident even though you believe there are no such things.. Kuru (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of PwC Error at 2017 Academy Awards 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Accounting scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115193217/http://lehmanreport.jenner.com/ to http://lehmanreport.jenner.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8745be6a-09af-11e1-a2bb-00144feabdc0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified