Talking Politics

[Baloo]

There should be chinese walls between the departments. Investments Banks have them where the M&A dept and Equities Traders are not allowed to go near each other. Systems are vigorously blocked and monitored. While that won't stop anyone having drinks or chatting over a cigarette break, even been seen talking to each other will result in a call up to Snr Mgmt and told to stop.

What PWC did here breaks all trust and quite frankly should lose their licence to operate in Australia.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Maybe, but would PWC advice competing businesses? If so would they ever share information about a competitor that advantages a client?
Im guessing not.

Absolutely they would (advise competing businesses).

They are a consultancy. They offer broad services for e.g. to miners. There is massive potential for COI. https://www.pwc.com.au/mining.html

Lack of trust in their confidentiality is table stakes to that game and would do big damage to that part of the business I imagine.

A big company using them could potentially ask for exclusivity to minimize this risk and maybe they will review their internal policiies. Checking this they already are.

Ziggy Switkowski AO to lead an independent review

PwC Australia is today announcing two key appointments as part of its ongoing process of addressing the unauthorised sharing of confidential tax policy information. Respected Australian business leader, Dr Ziggy Switkowski AO, will lead an independent review of the firm’s governance...

www.pwc.com.au

It is interesting as imagine a lawyer would be bound to not do this full stop. But as a consultancy you want to build up expertise in an industry and then sell that same thing again and again to different players in that industry.

 

[Sintiger]

Maybe, but would PWC advice competing businesses? If so would they ever share information about a competitor that advantages a client?
Im guessing not.

They shouldn't but that isn't quite my point

What I am saying is that the firm advising the Government on how to address multi national tax minimisation schemes is one that actively advises clients all over the world how to utilise them. In fact they may well have devised some of them.

 

[DavidSSS]

Expecting a company which makes money out of selling tax avoidance advice to not use their inside info about tax laws, well, it just defies belief.

Of course they will use that info.

The problem here, and it is not restricted to government, is the chronic outsourcing to these outfits. Occasionally you might need an outside opinion, although most of these companies just rehash what they have written in prior consultations for the next lucrative contract. Governments especially need to have a strong independent public service rather than squandering billions in hand-outs to international consultants. Employ the right people in the public service and they will get the advice they need, and they will cost a fraction of consulting fees. The politicisation and weakening of the public service has done no favours for any of us except those who directly profit from being consultants.

DS

 

[Sintiger]

Expecting a company which makes money out of selling tax avoidance advice to not use their inside info about tax laws, well, it just defies belief.

Of course they will use that info.

The problem here, and it is not restricted to government, is the chronic outsourcing to these outfits. Occasionally you might need an outside opinion, although most of these companies just rehash what they have written in prior consultations for the next lucrative contract. Governments especially need to have a strong independent public service rather than squandering billions in hand-outs to international consultants. Employ the right people in the public service and they will get the advice they need, and they will cost a fraction of consulting fees. The politicisation and weakening of the public service has done no favours for any of us except those who directly profit from being consultants.

DS

yep

I can't tell you how many times in my career have I seen my own words or those who work with me slightly changed and repackaged as advice. Boards seem to believe consultants sometimes when they don't believe their own staff.

Sure, there are times where their expertise is not something that is available in-house and using consultants then can be necessary.

I experienced first hand the explosion of the use of the Big 4 ( and a few others) in the state public sector during COVID. Some was necessary, much of it was not imho.

 

[DavidSSS]

yep

I can't tell you how many times in my career have I seen my own words or those who work with me slightly changed and repackaged as advice. Boards seem to believe consultants sometimes when they don't believe their own staff.

Sure, there are times where their expertise is not something that is available in-house and using consultants then can be necessary.

I experienced first hand the explosion of the use of the Big 4 ( and a few others) in the state public sector during COVID. Some was necessary, much of it was not imho.

We had a big restructure at my work a few years back, before COVID. At a union meeting one guy got up and talked about the way they do these consultant reports, he had previously worked for one of these consulting companies. He said they cut and paste the organisation name out of their previous report and then proof read for any nuances for the organisation they are writing the report for. Some of the stuff they asked about and came back with was laughable if you knew the actual details, but they weren't fussed with details, just wanted their large payola to pump out the usual crap. Of course, the organisation hiring them also wants the usual crap so they can reduce staff and restructure so no-one can think they have an ongoing job.

It is a very expensive joke.

DS

 

[Brodders17]

Expecting a company which makes money out of selling tax avoidance advice to not use their inside info about tax laws, well, it just defies belief.

Maybe, but again expecting a company that relies on it's good name, built by integrity and ethical behaviour, to act ethically and with integrity, and not to break the law shouldnt be too much of a stretch.

The government should pull all contracts it has with PWC, ASIC should fine the crap out of them, and anyone involved should be investigted for criminal behaviour.

 

[Baloo]

The government should pull all contracts it has with PWC, ASIC should fine the crap out of them, and anyone involved should be investigted for criminal behaviour.

You're right. But the Government are probably scared how much dirt a PWC has on the government having worked with them from back in Howard's time

 

[tigersnake]

We had a big restructure at my work a few years back, before COVID. At a union meeting one guy got up and talked about the way they do these consultant reports, he had previously worked for one of these consulting companies. He said they cut and paste the organisation name out of their previous report and then proof read for any nuances for the organisation they are writing the report for. Some of the stuff they asked about and came back with was laughable if you knew the actual details, but they weren't fussed with details, just wanted their large payola to pump out the usual crap. Of course, the organisation hiring them also wants the usual crap so they can reduce staff and restructure so no-one can think they have an ongoing job.

It is a very expensive joke.

DS

Consultancies aren't always like this, but they often are. They are employed usually on one of two bases, to genuinely get expert info and advice in an area of need, or provide a veneer of taking action while actually deflecting legal and political heat.

There is a classic episode of Utopia when a big consultancy firm meets with the Rob Sitch boss character trying to wheedle out of him what he wants the report to say, they get what they want and leave, then a completed 2000 page 2 volume report arrives on his desk the next morning.

 

[Sintiger]

There is a classic episode of Utopia when a big consultancy firm meets with the Rob Sitch boss character trying to wheedle out of him what he wants the report to say, they get what they want and leave, then a completed 2000 page 2 volume report arrives on his desk the next morning.

Unfortunately I have seen this too many times. Consultancies done to ensure the result the client wanted in the first place

 

[Baloo]

Unfortunately I have seen this too many times. Consultancies done to ensure the result the client wanted in the first place

Which is why the client agreed to pay the money. They wouldn't pay if they didn't like the answer

 

[Brodders17]

Unfortunately I have seen this too many times. Consultancies done to ensure the result the client wanted in the first place

Dont be ridiculous- next you will be suggesting big national sporting bodies pay big fees to employment consultants so they can hire who they want but make it look like there is a process.

 

[Sintiger]

Which is why the client agreed to pay the money. They wouldn't pay if they didn't like the answer

Mmmmmm

That’s not why I employ consultants Baloo

 

[Baloo]

Mmmmmm

That’s not why I employ consultants Baloo

Freak

 

[DavidSSS]

Maybe, but again expecting a company that relies on it's good name, built by integrity and ethical behaviour, to act ethically and with integrity, and not to break the law shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

The government should pull all contracts it has with PWC, ASIC should fine the crap out of them, and anyone involved should be investigted for criminal behaviour.

Sorry, I wasn't aware PWC or any of the other parasites had a good name except amongst tax avoiders. I think they rely more on their willingness to have no ethics. Maybe I'm just too cynical

The government should pull all contracts with all of the big accounting firms, waste of money. I have seen a fair number of restructures at work and I just wish those in power had the backbone to just say what they want, implement it, and save a whole lot of wasted money which they could use to continue employing people.

DS

 

[Sintiger]

Sorry, I wasn't aware PWC or any of the other parasites had a good name except amongst tax avoiders. I think they rely more on their willingness to have no ethics. Maybe I'm just too cynical

I think you are too cynical David. It is not quite that bad.

What i have come to believe over the years about consulting firms ( not just the big 4) is

1. They try to be too many things to too many clients which means that they have massive conflicts of interest to manage. We hear a lot about chinese walls but I really doubt their effectiveness.
2. They are too willing too often to provide the answer the client wants because they are worried about the next job
3. A fair bit of what they do is rebadging what the client's senior managers and staff say as their advice and this happens because Boards feel more confident and protected by "independent advice"
4. These days, even more than in the past, there are many professional consulting staff who have no practical experience in what they are advising on or their firm has noone who can advise them practically.

Despite all this there are definitely times when I use them and have gained value from them but in almost all those cases it is because their ability to have domain experts in very technical areas is way more than I can get access to in-house. That is when they add specific value imo.

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't think I am too cynical, but I would say that.

Point 4 is an interesting one, I don't think it is just the consulting firms, I have found employers don't really value specific knowledge as much these days either. You hear comments about how experienced employees will oppose change, well, yeah, experienced employees often oppose change when it is rubbish. What they often won't admit is that specific expertise is useful and a critical attitude to change is better than the attitude that change is always good.

The other thing about point 4 is that it applies, maybe even more so, to politicians. So many these days just come up through the ranks of being advisors or the like and straight into politics without ever holding down a job unrelated to their political ambitions. No practical experience in anything a lot of the time.

Gee, I'm being cynical again.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

I don't think I am too cynical, but I would say that.

Point 4 is an interesting one, I don't think it is just the consulting firms, I have found employers don't really value specific knowledge as much these days either. You hear comments about how experienced employees will oppose change, well, yeah, experienced employees often oppose change when it is rubbish. What they often won't admit is that specific expertise is useful and a critical attitude to change is better than the attitude that change is always good.

The other thing about point 4 is that it applies, maybe even more so, to politicians. So many these days just come up through the ranks of being advisors or the like and straight into politics without ever holding down a job unrelated to their political ambitions. No practical experience in anything a lot of the time.

Gee, I'm being cynical again.

DS

I think the reality is that in a lot of organisations only a few people really know how certain things work or how and why the business actually makes money etc.

Need good leadership / empowerment / listening etc to make things really hum.

Government (departments) have little existential pressures where your job disappears if the business is crap / not run well.

ATO will keep ATOing. And teachers keep teaching (even if they are rubbish)

 

[Brodders17]

4. These days, even more than in the past, there are many professional consulting staff who have no practical experience in what they are advising on or their firm has noone who can advise them practically.

Despite all this there are definitely times when I use them and have gained value from them but in almost all those cases it is because their ability to have domain experts in very technical areas is way more than I can get access to in-house. That is when they add specific value imo.

You mean like say a government wanting to find ways to close tax loopholes, employing consultants whose day job it is is to find tax loopholes?

 

[Sintiger]

I don't think I am too cynical, but I would say that.

Point 4 is an interesting one, I don't think it is just the consulting firms, I have found employers don't really value specific knowledge as much these days either. You hear comments about how experienced employees will oppose change, well, yeah, experienced employees often oppose change when it is rubbish. What they often won't admit is that specific expertise is useful and a critical attitude to change is better than the attitude that change is always good.

The other thing about point 4 is that it applies, maybe even more so, to politicians. So many these days just come up through the ranks of being advisors or the like and straight into politics without ever holding down a job unrelated to their political ambitions. No practical experience in anything a lot of the time.

Gee, I'm being cynical again.

DS

Ageism is alive and well.

The interesting thing to me is that I have no doubt I am better at what I do now than I was 20 years ago, I just know and have seen more. The old saying about experience is pertinent to some however ie there is a difference between 20 years experience and 1 year experience 20 times!

I think I have posted before that over recent years I have come into contact with political advisers and staffers of key people around government and the bureaucracy. I am often staggered at how little experience they have and how little they know and that being totally at odds with how much power they seem to have.