Enron data retrieval

[Cian O'Connor]

--- Kendall Clark <kendall at monkeyfist.com> wrote: >
>>>>> "cian" == Cian O'Connor
> <cian_oconnor at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> 
>   cian> Well from conversations with people I know
> who have worked for
>   cian> the big three, they probably knew about the
> hole, but ignored
>   cian> it because of lucrative consultancy fees.
> 
> For what it's worth, that Enron fees to Andersen
> were a *very, very*
> small part of total revenues.
> 
> Not remotely enough to justify *any* risk on the
> part of those not
> *directly* involved.
> 
> And given the way Andersen is organized and run, it
> seems likely that
> almost no other partners knew what was going on in
> the Enron account
> (or "engagement" as they call them now), which is of
> course how
> Andersen is spinning the whole thing.

Except that this sort of thing seems to go on all the
time in the big accountancy firms. They wouldn't have
known the details of this particular instance, but
there is obviously a culture that encourages this kind
of behaviour (or certainly doesn't discourage it. This
is exactly what happened with Maxwell in the 80s).
There's definitely collusion between those who did the
audits, and those who do consultancy on a particular
company according to people I've known who've worked
at Andersons. I think one partner is normally
responsible for the revenues for a particular company,
so obviously its in his interests.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com