Friday, October 16, 2009

When I was in the recruiting business...

...and placing senior-level finance and accounting professionals, a big selling point was a Big Four background. In other words, if the candidate had started his or her career with one of the Big Four accounting firms, clients would often sit up and take notice.

"...He's got an MBA, a CPA, he's strong in Excel and Access, worked with all the major accounting software systems, has a Big Four background..."

"Did you say Big Four background?"

"Yeah. Uh, let me see...yeah, he started out as an auditor for Pricewaterhouse ten years ago..."

"Send him right over."

Not knowing anything about finance or accounting, I asked my boss what was so impressive about a Big Four background. He explained to me that the Big Four pays better than anyone else out of college and therefore attracts the best talent. Then, the new hires get the best training in the industry and can usually write their own tickets as time goes on. Also, they are usually highly-polished individuals who "come across well" and are known for performing under stressful conditions. Bottom line: the Big Four are the Cadillacs of the industry. Oh.

So it was with this knowledge that I was surprised that PricewaterhouseCoopers would lend its name to the shoddy report published last weekend by AHIP, the trade association for the private health insurance companies. The study was released in a last-ditch effort to derail reform and was roundly criticized as an industry hatchet job. Now I don't really blame the insurance industry; they have shown themselves to be almost devoid of integrity and have nothing to lose in the effort. But Pricewaterhouse is a Big Four company. I know times are tough and I'm sure the fee for the report was fat, but someday the economy is going to come out of this recession and reputations will once again count for something. So why would Pricewaterhouse risk putting their name on such a bad product? When the dust settles, they could be seen as the biggest loser here.

No comments: