Talk:Accounting scandals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush speech[edit]

Source of Bush speech info: National Public Radio, "All Things Considered", July 9, 2002

Naming convention[edit]

I'm moving this from Accountancy scandals to Accounting scandals, the much more common term.

Does this violate the naming convention about plurals? --Ellmist Thursday, August 22nd, 2002.

Dual purpose[edit]

In a way. The article needs to be broken up into accounting scandal and something else which describes the specific current situation, perhaps 2000s accounting scandals. The naming convention violation is indicative of a deeper problem with the article, namely its dual purpose. --The Cunctator

I agree that the dual purpose is a problem. For the title of the article about the current situation, how about "Accounting scandals in the United States in 2002", or "Contemporary accounting scandals in the United States"? Or, if the problem is truly worldwide, just "Contemporary accounting scandals"? --Ryguasu
not all entries are for 2002; mostly in US, but multi-nationals involved. so maybe your last suggestion. --Rj 20:53, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Corporate vs. Accounting[edit]

Is there a distiction to be made between corporate and accounting scandal? --Rj 18:46, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Move[edit]

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

Companies[edit]

Sunbeam? Is that Sunbeam Products ([1])?--Jerryseinfeld 07:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Koss Corporation - 2009 - USA - Exec. Sujata "Sue" Sachdeva embezzled 34 million over 5 years through an accounting fraud that required several other employees to heed her direction. Auditor was Grant Thornton LLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.147.187 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of historical perspective[edit]

Since the title has changed to Accounting scandals, rather than the old title of Accounting scandals of 2002, it is implied that the article is a broad based survey of accounting scandals. But the oldest one listed is in 2000. At a minimum, the article needs an opening paragraph stating the long history of accounting scandals, or you need to change it to Recent accounting scandals.

'I completely agree with this view that, this article needs a broader discussion including corporate failures before 2000. -- Muntasir Khaliek, Portobello College, '


The development of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States, as well as the development of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), and the increased role of government regulation is directly tracable to various "accounting scandals."

Leaving it the way it is, it looks like once Bush took office, corporations ran wild. Instead, this is merely the latest wave of scandals with a long history, stretching back far before there was a United States to mess up accounting. For example, take a look at the South Sea Bubble. I don't think you can blame Bush, or even the Republicans, for that one.--Fredrik Coulter 04:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

What is the article for ?[edit]

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)[reply]
I added references for fraud at ImClone, KMart, and Sunbeam. Jaufrec (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction book as reference[edit]

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, ISBN 978-1425749958". 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)[reply]

Personaly, I dought any book marketed as a work of fiction counts as a reliable source. Jon 16:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens 2006 Scandal[edit]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonLoyola (talk • contribs)

iSoft[edit]

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)[reply]

December 2011 Scandal: MF Global[edit]

See:

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)[reply]

Early leaving[edit]

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)[reply]

For further information, see Anthony Barrowclough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.108 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This tells of the Barlow Clowes affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.32.108 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Chikpet[edit]

Chikpet saree traders is not an accountancy firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.72 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Neutrality of the "Causes" Section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Kuru: Ten years later, this section still has a POV tag. Is this section still biased today? Jarble (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Favero's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Favero has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The section on Causes focuses only on one kind of possible accounting scandals - i.e. understatement of financial performances aimed at takeover. There are many others, and in recent decades a particular emphasis was put in Western capitalism on performance overstatement aiming at increasing management compensation related to stock performances. Yet other fraudulent mechanisms are at work in other cultural contexts. A general overview is available in Jones M (2011) Creative accounting, fraud and international accounting scandals. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.


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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Accounting scandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of PwC Error at 2017 Academy Awards[edit]

@Kuru:

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)[reply]
@WSDavitt: 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting_scandals&oldid=1204480423"