9 ms·

EY, Mckinsey, Accenture, BCG all of them should be banned. They were the big proponent of the the just in time management principles in the hospitals in the Ne

EY, Mckinsey, Accenture, BCG all of them should be banned. They were the big proponent of the the just in time management principles in the hospitals in the Netherlands. Then when covid came they were the first the market on twitter & linkedin for advice how to improve your health inventory & deal with covid challenges. Serious impact with zero skin in the game. These consultants are parasites. They are mainly used as proxies to make decisions managers dont want to be responsible for.

Cantinflas 4y ago
Agree about the proxy part for the consultancy business, it should be common knowledge and those manager should be fired
version_five 4y ago
This article is about auditing, your comments appear to be about consulting / advisory businesses. Otherwise, I mostly agree, though I don't support a ban. It's a complex topic - companies are free to waste money how they want, and even governments do need real advice. It's just too bad they pick such shitty advisors to support decisions they've already made instead of actually seeking good advice.
- oxfordmale 4y ago
  Yes, companies should be free to waste their money as they want. However, auditors serve a purpose and that is to identify any fraudulent activities. In the case of Wirecard, EY failed at this.
  - theK 4y ago
    Correct and that is why they should be made accountable for this. I'm with gp that this particular ban is a bit harsh but nonetheless it is the state determining accountabilities and it seems to have been a thorough investigation. OTOH, the monetary penalties where a bit on the light side so maybe that also balances out the rather harsh ban.
- vajrabum 4y ago
  Advice for money at least at the top level is in the long run always going to end up bad advice. The incentives are pretty much all about lining up more work for the firm.
baxtr 4y ago
[flagged]
- wouldbecouldbe 4y ago
  It's not hate, it's accountablity. They are very powerful and rich institutions in the Western world that are able to make billions, of which a large part tax payers money and have in many cases a negative impact.
  - baxtr 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - DANmode 4y ago
      I'm reading a displeased comment because of a possible connection to one of the listed firms, or a similar one. Maybe unintended. But that's what I read into it.
    - appleiigs 4y ago
      I think your comment is worse in nature than OP. Are you adding any counter-ideas to the conversation or just complaining? And now I'm complaining about your complaining.
      - baxtr 4y ago
        Actually, I have to admit that you’re right! The comment’s missing nuance triggered me. Also the word parasite. I should haven’t replied.
- detuur 4y ago
  Seems to me the comment is a concise, if clearly one-sided, narrative of misaligned incentives of the consulting industry and its particular role in the difficulties that the Dutch healthcare providers experienced during the pandemic. Hardly an appeal to hate.
moremetadata 4y ago
[dead]
_fat_santa 4y ago
They are "professional scapegoats" IMO, companies pay them to take the blame and their business model seems to be: collect fees, do an "audit", pay the fine, keep the spread.
- zzzzsleep662 4y ago
  Audit results are taken very seriously by companies operating in heavily regulated industries that intend to stay in business, so healthcare, finance, insurance etc. If you are a team lead doing programming for one of these sorts of companies and the auditors come round with some findings, I promise you that you need to take it deadly seriously. I've seen engineers fired for cause by the board of directors of a fortune 500 for failing to do so. Word gets around and nobody will touch them after that. Its literally career ending to poo poo audits. Tech companies are the odd man out when it comes to audits, which is why its possible for so many in a thread like this to have opinions that are so wildly inconsistent with reality. Who knows how much longer that will last, particularly with advances in AI.
  - DANmode 4y ago
    What does "failing to do so" look like most times, if you don't mind me asking?
    - zzzzsleep662 4y ago
      No I don't mind. It means delaying or coming up with excuses for why you can't have security concerns remediated within the agreed upon time frame. Regardless of the technical challenges involved. Audit remediations are not the kind of projects where delays are acceptable. You absolutely must drop everything else you've got going on in those situations if you even remotely get a hint that the project might be behind. The reason here is that your boss and your bosses' boss can't save you. If bad audit results come back you can bet the C suite had an emergency meeting discussing how to explain them to the board and the timeframe for getting them fixed. And you can bet they made some sort of commitment. There are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars on the line in insurance premiums and future legal process in some cases. Oftentimes cyber insurance will mandate some kind of timeframe for remediation upon notification of a security issue. So you'll get hit with penalties well before the next audit if you delay. You don't want to be the programmer(s) that missed a deadline there.
hef19898 4y ago
Well, EY didn't get banned from consulting, but rather accounting work. And the latter is crucial, and even legally required for all and every public company. The reasons are, among others, Enron and , yes, Wirecard. And the fact that EY screwed up Wirecard is the reason they got banned. By the way, it was KPMG that caught the Wirecard fraud. And KPMG is in the same league and business as EY. One of the reasons, IMHO, that Wirecard managed to get away with it for so long is, that as a German company, they didn't have to switch Accountants and have another accounting firm helping them in preparing the books. That would be a SOX set-up, and it makes perfect sense. It helps to prevent fraud and it protects retail investors, both of which are good things in my book. Strategy consulting, the stuff BCG and McK does, is different. As is the outsourcing and consulting Accebture does, which is also different from what McK does. The topic so, is EY and accounting.
looping__lui 4y ago
McKinsey and BCG do not audit companies. They are consultancies and do not certify accounts to be “correct and legit”. Think of auditing companies a little bit like of vehicle inspection shops certifying your car is safe for the road. Consultancies are not doing that. I’m not sure why certain businesses should be “banned” because YOU believe they do not add value. Do you pay them? No. It’s not correct that they are proxies for decision making that mangers don’t want to be responsible for. Neither McK nor BCG could run at the scale they do for five decades if that was the case. But I suppose that was just your happy Sunday rant of the day to let off some steam.
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  > I’m not sure why certain businesses should be “banned” because YOU believe they do not add value. Do you pay them? No. Yes, whenever they are hired by the public sector. http://recreation.gov http://recreation.gov is one example in the US I know about.
  - looping__lui 4y ago
    So the public sector should not hire private contractors in general. State it like that then. How is a mismanagement of consultants by public sector entities a justification to “ban” an entire sector?
    - qwytw 4y ago
      Well the least they can do is force band auditing companies from offering consulting services because that is a clear conflict of interest..
      - looping__lui 4y ago
        That I do agree with. BCG and McK don’t offer auditing.
    - 331c8c71 4y ago
      I was objecting to "you don't pay them" specifically.
amrb 4y ago
The big four prop up the business world, status quo. Say your a large company listed on the stock market, so pick from the four big companies because serious companies use them, who's the CFO an ex-account from the big four who knows their orderand process. Now if no other companies can enter that bubble, are we really surprised at the outcome!?
euix 4y ago
My partner works at one of these big four companies and the way she puts it - they essentially function as outsourced expertise for governments the world over - essentially expert functions have been hollowed out of state governments and into the private sector and thus there is really no expertise within the national government level to handle complex tax and accounting situations and they are instead all outsourced to these firms. We should really consider the present western world as some sort of marriage of corporatism and government - they are really hand in hand as two sides of the same coin.
- 55555 4y ago
  Yeah but then the experts at the big 4 are 23 year old grads with no experience. I don't get it.
  - DANmode 4y ago
    Lends even more plausible deniability when processes aren't followed, or a "mistake" is made (possibly at the behest of the client).
  - Traubenfuchs 4y ago
    Because approaching 30 and being in the senior consultant, (junior) manager and director positions ones primary job at Deloitte becomes selling / pitching work that those below you will do. I was a Deloitte manager.
  - theK 4y ago
    Not if you look at Audit (which is what the EY story is about). In Audit you have legislature requiring accountability structures and typically there will be one or more persons in an audit that are personally accountable about the attestation. These people in big fours typically are some certified auditors in their 30s and also a partner at the firm (40s and up)
    - wil421 4y ago
      I know a few people who went into Audit after Masters in Accounting degrees. It was basically a 2 year post grad program to excel their careers. None of them wanted to go for partner it was just a 2-3 year box to check. I know much more people on the IT Consulting side who are in it for the long haul to partner or whatever. The job was also much better than the Audit scene, 80+ hour days in a sweaty conference room and next to no days off. They both had he same MO, send in the 30s\40s flashy employees who then delegate all the work to 23 year olds. Once the project is in full force they tend to leave and another crew comes in who interfaces with the low cost offshore teams or 23 year olds.
epups 4y ago
What is "skin in the game" in this context?
ksec 4y ago
>They are mainly used as proxies to make decisions managers dont want to be responsible for. Interesting I just watched a video [1] on consulting yday. It is on something similar happening in the UK. And another video ( couldn't find it ) that suggest unless there are some other interest for these consultant, ( like outsourcing certain function to certain clients ) all they do is to make a case for what the management wanted to do anyway, and rubber stamp on it. And mostly because management wanted something on their CV / resume, so they could move on to another job and repeat the same process again. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2od-Jpanw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2od-Jpanw
cjalmeida 4y ago
Er… McKinsey and BCG don’t even do audit. What do they have to do with TFA?

Cantinflas 4y ago

Agree about the proxy part for the consultancy business, it should be common knowledge and those manager should be fired

version_five 4y ago

This article is about auditing, your comments appear to be about consulting / advisory businesses. Otherwise, I mostly agree, though I don't support a ban. It's a complex topic - companies are free to waste money how they want, and even governments do need real advice. It's just too bad they pick such shitty advisors to support decisions they've already made instead of actually seeking good advice.

oxfordmale 4y ago
Yes, companies should be free to waste their money as they want. However, auditors serve a purpose and that is to identify any fraudulent activities. In the case of Wirecard, EY failed at this.
- theK 4y ago
  Correct and that is why they should be made accountable for this. I'm with gp that this particular ban is a bit harsh but nonetheless it is the state determining accountabilities and it seems to have been a thorough investigation. OTOH, the monetary penalties where a bit on the light side so maybe that also balances out the rather harsh ban.
vajrabum 4y ago
Advice for money at least at the top level is in the long run always going to end up bad advice. The incentives are pretty much all about lining up more work for the firm.

baxtr 4y ago

[flagged]

wouldbecouldbe 4y ago
It's not hate, it's accountablity. They are very powerful and rich institutions in the Western world that are able to make billions, of which a large part tax payers money and have in many cases a negative impact.
- baxtr 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - DANmode 4y ago
    I'm reading a displeased comment because of a possible connection to one of the listed firms, or a similar one. Maybe unintended. But that's what I read into it.
  - appleiigs 4y ago
    I think your comment is worse in nature than OP. Are you adding any counter-ideas to the conversation or just complaining? And now I'm complaining about your complaining.
    - baxtr 4y ago
      Actually, I have to admit that you’re right! The comment’s missing nuance triggered me. Also the word parasite. I should haven’t replied.
detuur 4y ago
Seems to me the comment is a concise, if clearly one-sided, narrative of misaligned incentives of the consulting industry and its particular role in the difficulties that the Dutch healthcare providers experienced during the pandemic. Hardly an appeal to hate.

moremetadata 4y ago

[dead]

_fat_santa 4y ago

They are "professional scapegoats" IMO, companies pay them to take the blame and their business model seems to be: collect fees, do an "audit", pay the fine, keep the spread.

zzzzsleep662 4y ago
Audit results are taken very seriously by companies operating in heavily regulated industries that intend to stay in business, so healthcare, finance, insurance etc. If you are a team lead doing programming for one of these sorts of companies and the auditors come round with some findings, I promise you that you need to take it deadly seriously. I've seen engineers fired for cause by the board of directors of a fortune 500 for failing to do so. Word gets around and nobody will touch them after that. Its literally career ending to poo poo audits. Tech companies are the odd man out when it comes to audits, which is why its possible for so many in a thread like this to have opinions that are so wildly inconsistent with reality. Who knows how much longer that will last, particularly with advances in AI.
- DANmode 4y ago
  What does "failing to do so" look like most times, if you don't mind me asking?
  - zzzzsleep662 4y ago
    No I don't mind. It means delaying or coming up with excuses for why you can't have security concerns remediated within the agreed upon time frame. Regardless of the technical challenges involved. Audit remediations are not the kind of projects where delays are acceptable. You absolutely must drop everything else you've got going on in those situations if you even remotely get a hint that the project might be behind. The reason here is that your boss and your bosses' boss can't save you. If bad audit results come back you can bet the C suite had an emergency meeting discussing how to explain them to the board and the timeframe for getting them fixed. And you can bet they made some sort of commitment. There are hundreds of millions to billions of dollars on the line in insurance premiums and future legal process in some cases. Oftentimes cyber insurance will mandate some kind of timeframe for remediation upon notification of a security issue. So you'll get hit with penalties well before the next audit if you delay. You don't want to be the programmer(s) that missed a deadline there.

hef19898 4y ago

Well, EY didn't get banned from consulting, but rather accounting work. And the latter is crucial, and even legally required for all and every public company. The reasons are, among others, Enron and , yes, Wirecard. And the fact that EY screwed up Wirecard is the reason they got banned. By the way, it was KPMG that caught the Wirecard fraud. And KPMG is in the same league and business as EY. One of the reasons, IMHO, that Wirecard managed to get away with it for so long is, that as a German company, they didn't have to switch Accountants and have another accounting firm helping them in preparing the books. That would be a SOX set-up, and it makes perfect sense. It helps to prevent fraud and it protects retail investors, both of which are good things in my book. Strategy consulting, the stuff BCG and McK does, is different. As is the outsourcing and consulting Accebture does, which is also different from what McK does. The topic so, is EY and accounting.

looping__lui 4y ago

McKinsey and BCG do not audit companies. They are consultancies and do not certify accounts to be “correct and legit”. Think of auditing companies a little bit like of vehicle inspection shops certifying your car is safe for the road. Consultancies are not doing that. I’m not sure why certain businesses should be “banned” because YOU believe they do not add value. Do you pay them? No. It’s not correct that they are proxies for decision making that mangers don’t want to be responsible for. Neither McK nor BCG could run at the scale they do for five decades if that was the case. But I suppose that was just your happy Sunday rant of the day to let off some steam.

331c8c71 4y ago
> I’m not sure why certain businesses should be “banned” because YOU believe they do not add value. Do you pay them? No. Yes, whenever they are hired by the public sector. http://recreation.gov http://recreation.gov is one example in the US I know about.
- looping__lui 4y ago
  So the public sector should not hire private contractors in general. State it like that then. How is a mismanagement of consultants by public sector entities a justification to “ban” an entire sector?
  - qwytw 4y ago
    Well the least they can do is force band auditing companies from offering consulting services because that is a clear conflict of interest..
    - looping__lui 4y ago
      That I do agree with. BCG and McK don’t offer auditing.
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    I was objecting to "you don't pay them" specifically.

amrb 4y ago

The big four prop up the business world, status quo. Say your a large company listed on the stock market, so pick from the four big companies because serious companies use them, who's the CFO an ex-account from the big four who knows their orderand process. Now if no other companies can enter that bubble, are we really surprised at the outcome!?

euix 4y ago

My partner works at one of these big four companies and the way she puts it - they essentially function as outsourced expertise for governments the world over - essentially expert functions have been hollowed out of state governments and into the private sector and thus there is really no expertise within the national government level to handle complex tax and accounting situations and they are instead all outsourced to these firms. We should really consider the present western world as some sort of marriage of corporatism and government - they are really hand in hand as two sides of the same coin.

55555 4y ago
Yeah but then the experts at the big 4 are 23 year old grads with no experience. I don't get it.
- DANmode 4y ago
  Lends even more plausible deniability when processes aren't followed, or a "mistake" is made (possibly at the behest of the client).
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago
  Because approaching 30 and being in the senior consultant, (junior) manager and director positions ones primary job at Deloitte becomes selling / pitching work that those below you will do. I was a Deloitte manager.
- theK 4y ago
  Not if you look at Audit (which is what the EY story is about). In Audit you have legislature requiring accountability structures and typically there will be one or more persons in an audit that are personally accountable about the attestation. These people in big fours typically are some certified auditors in their 30s and also a partner at the firm (40s and up)
  - wil421 4y ago
    I know a few people who went into Audit after Masters in Accounting degrees. It was basically a 2 year post grad program to excel their careers. None of them wanted to go for partner it was just a 2-3 year box to check. I know much more people on the IT Consulting side who are in it for the long haul to partner or whatever. The job was also much better than the Audit scene, 80+ hour days in a sweaty conference room and next to no days off. They both had he same MO, send in the 30s\40s flashy employees who then delegate all the work to 23 year olds. Once the project is in full force they tend to leave and another crew comes in who interfaces with the low cost offshore teams or 23 year olds.

epups 4y ago

What is "skin in the game" in this context?

ksec 4y ago

>They are mainly used as proxies to make decisions managers dont want to be responsible for. Interesting I just watched a video [1] on consulting yday. It is on something similar happening in the UK. And another video ( couldn't find it ) that suggest unless there are some other interest for these consultant, ( like outsourcing certain function to certain clients ) all they do is to make a case for what the management wanted to do anyway, and rubber stamp on it. And mostly because management wanted something on their CV / resume, so they could move on to another job and repeat the same process again. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2od-Jpanw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj2od-Jpanw

cjalmeida 4y ago

Er… McKinsey and BCG don’t even do audit. What do they have to do with TFA?