Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 01:02

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 10:45
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services. This presents difficulties for many multi-national companies because there are only four large international accounting firms based in the United States. An outspoken group of CEOs has suggested breaking up the “Big Four” firms into smaller operations, so that corporations will have more options for their accounting needs.

Which of the following stipulations would be most helpful in assuring the success of the CEOs’ plan to provide more variety in accounting services by breaking up the Big Four firms?

* The firms should maintain their multi-national contacts.
* CEOs for the new companies should be chosen from inside each firm.
* Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.
* The new firms should maintain their internal audit procedures.
* The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are not broken up.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 10:49
tied between A and C..

I think if A was not true, it will weaken the CEO argument..so going with A

and E says quite the opposite, since the stem said..they have to pick 1 firm for audit and another firm for other-accounting services...

so If E is true then how can these companies comply with federal law?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 10:55
can you explain how A or C impact the question of variety?
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 11:01
prasun84 wrote:
can you explain how A or C impact the question of variety?


well, Ok so think of this if these companies didnt maintain multinational presence, then CEOs will be forced to go with a few handful of companies..same problem they had earlier..

variety, if these companies break-up each specializing in a specific area, then CEOs can pick and chose which ones they want, instead of getting the "package deal"..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 11:06
interesting point..but then B would serve the cause better...
fresinha12 wrote:
prasun84 wrote:
variety, if these companies break-up each specializing in a specific area, then CEOs can pick and chose which ones they want, instead of getting the "package deal"..
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3403
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 2

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 11:09
prasun84 wrote:
interesting point..but then B would serve the cause better...
fresinha12 wrote:
prasun84 wrote:
variety, if these companies break-up each specializing in a specific area, then CEOs can pick and chose which ones they want, instead of getting the "package deal"..


B is irrelevant..

I know the OA..but i disagree with it..infact according to the OA..its not possible since federal requires companies to pick 1 firm for auditing and another firm for other accounting services
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 11:17
The big 4 corporations can break up in a manner that the composite audit and non-audit firms are still separate.....
say for ex, if 1 corp can break up into 2 divisions under audit and 2 divisions under non-profit each...
in that case, i still have segregated accounting divisions and yes....lot more choices....
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 997
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 5

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 12:48
It is not saying that they are getting a "packaged" deal. It's contrary to that.

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services

The issue is that the big 4 is taking a huge presence, so company do not have many options to choose from.

For example, If I use Deloitte for audit, then I have to use PWC for non audit. After awhile, companies start running out of options.

The answers suck, but I'd go with C.

* Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.

If the firm needs to choose another firm for non audit needs and the big 4 is broken up, now I have more options, since there is now, lets say 15, operations to choose from.

fresinha12 wrote:
prasun84 wrote:
can you explain how A or C impact the question of variety?


well, Ok so think of this if these companies didnt maintain multinational presence, then CEOs will be forced to go with a few handful of companies..same problem they had earlier..

variety, if these companies break-up each specializing in a specific area, then CEOs can pick and chose which ones they want, instead of getting the "package deal"..
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 50
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 13:26
bigfernhead wrote:
It is not saying that they are getting a "packaged" deal. It's contrary to that.

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate accounting firms for audit and non-audit services

The issue is that the big 4 is taking a huge presence, so company do not have many options to choose from.

For example, If I use Deloitte for audit, then I have to use PWC for non audit. After awhile, companies start running out of options.

The answers suck, but I'd go with C.

* Corporations must keep the same firm for their audit services, but should choose a new firm for non-audit needs.

If the firm needs to choose another firm for non audit needs and the big 4 is broken up, now I have more options, since there is now, lets say 15, operations to choose from.

fresinha12 wrote:
prasun84 wrote:
can you explain how A or C impact the question of variety?


well, Ok so think of this if these companies didnt maintain multinational presence, then CEOs will be forced to go with a few handful of companies..same problem they had earlier..

variety, if these companies break-up each specializing in a specific area, then CEOs can pick and chose which ones they want, instead of getting the "package deal"..


I agree with BFH.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1435
Followers: 35

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 1

Re: CR:Audit:Good One [#permalink] New post 19 Nov 2008, 15:25
Is there a typo in E? I read it like 10 times and its quite the opposite of what the CEO wants

if E were

The Big Four firms should divide so that the audit and non-audit sections are broken up

Then it helps CEO's case with more option

But taking it as it is, I had nothing close but C.
Re: CR:Audit:Good One   [#permalink] 19 Nov 2008, 15:25
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate a unknown5386 9 07 Apr 2014, 06:47
22 Experts publish their posts in the topic The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal eybrj2 14 29 Feb 2012, 14:15
Federal regulations require that corporations use separate noboru 12 02 Aug 2009, 11:19
24 Experts publish their posts in the topic Federal regulations require that corporations use separate zonk 48 16 Aug 2008, 06:10
The excessive number of safety regulations that the federal YHP 8 15 Aug 2007, 16:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Federal regulations require that corporations use separate

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.