Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Tuesday 28th March

This post on acccountancy seems muddled-headed. Rules restricting accountancy firms from offering consultancy services if they also do audits are not uncommon, and I think was one of the main reforms instigated in the US after the Enron/Arthur Anderson and other scandals.

For example:

In response to recent accounting scandals, new Federal legislation restricts the nonauditing services that public accountants can provide to clients. If an accounting firm audits a client’s financial statements, that same firm cannot provide advice on human resources, technology, investment banking, or legal matters, although accountants may still advise on tax issues, such as establishing a tax shelter.



I imagine Tim doesn't believe such laws should exist, or even a requirement that firms have their books audited. He would argue that the free market should take care of it and firms that aren't audited would be shunned. I think that would have been a better line of argument than the "Isn't the EU crap" jeers.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home