All countries have government-required laws like Sarbanes Oxley. In the UK, it’s the “Combined Code on Corporate Governance,” in The Netherlands it’s the “Code Tabaksblatt,” Germany has a “Bilanz Reform” and a “Bilanz Kontroll Gesetz.” But then, why do we need SOX overseas since we already have the required laws? It’s because companies with U.S. headquarters must ensure that all foreign outposts meet federal standards. This is the major cause of concern in the management and accounting circles. According to some experts, the Sarbanes Oxley Act might have dictated convoluted rules and regulations on the U.S. businesses. While the rules are concrete ideologies that prevent accounting scandals, the constant flux in the policies confuses businesses around the globe.

SOX compliance by vendors and business partners outside the U.S. is a frightening task. The risks and complications involved in enforcing the regulations for multiple firms around the world are enormous. The U.S. firms should keep themselves abreast of the data operations and data management followed by overseas vendors. This complicates the case further as the data should be integrated in financials or entered in balance sheets. Cumbersome processing of data would step up IT-related expenses.

The global impact of SOX is tremendous. At the moment, the UK Big Four firms are feeling SOX repercussions in their consulting sectors. http://www.big4.com -a website for global Big4 alumni – receives periodic updates on the latest news and trends at the Big Four firms. The Big Four in UK reportedly lost GBP250 million in consulting fees since 2002-a direct outcome of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Among the Big Four firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers faced a huge decline in their consulting fees. Causes for this decline can be attributed to:
·The increased cost of compliance that usurped consulting budgets.
·Independence restrictions in Sarbanes-Oxley have restrained companies from utilizing their auditors for many consulting services.

There is an apparent role reversal in consulting fees and audit services. If consulting fees have declined, audit fees have considerably increased. A whopping 30% increase in Big Four audit fees has been observed over a period of two years. This spike does not compensate for the revenues lost for consulting. Consulting was the major strength of the Big Four in the UK. But, in the present conditions, the significant decline in consulting fees clearly demarcates the performance of the Big Four in the UK.

According to a survey by an European firm, many overseas firms with their shares listed in the U.S. were not ready to meet the deadlines of Sarbanes-Oxley. Since European firms already have specific regulations, SOX compliance is extremely difficult. Some overseas firms have been attempting to get delisted from the U.S. stock markets since SOX’s inception. Foreign firms about to get listed on overseas exchanges are also resisting to get listed in the U.S. These problems would take toll on the U.S. market performance and economy. But, the exit of foreign firms from the U.S. exchanges is not that easy. As per SEC guidelines, foreign firms holding 300 or more shareholders in the U.S. cannot delist from the U.S. exchange where they trade.

In the light of these problems, the Securities and Exchange Commission-in its bid to offer sustained flexibility-started modifying rules for overseas firms listed in the U.S. The SEC would facilitate foreign firms to delist their securities that are traded on the U.S. exchanges. Modifying SEC rules to accommodate European firms would create a state of unrest among the American managements.

The SOX compliance should be an “all-encompassing” formula-that which enables governments and managements worldwide to function efficiently and in rhythm. A level headed approach to weed out this disconcert would improve the situation.

The mystique of the partnership is evaporating, and it could change the character and composition of the Big Four fundamentally. Yes, Mr. Dylan, the times, they are a-changin’. Anecdotally, more and more senior managers talk quietly – never publicly – about what their next moves would be. Those illicit conversations occurred in hushed tones away from the office – often emerging from frank advice offered to more junior staff members.

But, where do you go?

Many senior managers are considering VP and C-level positions instead of shooting for the partnership. Citing lifestyle desires (i.e. getting off the road), earning potential, and less politically charged environments, even top-performing senior managers are exploring careers outside the Big Four.

Aside from these internal pressures, up-and-comers clearly have concerns about the resilience – and costs – of the partnership structure. Once upon a time, the partnership buy-in was considered a pristine investment opportunity. The past few years, though, have called this perception into question.

It all started with Enron.

Many of the consultants and accountants in our community are still in pain from the collapse of Andersen – especially the ex-Andersen folks who have sought refuge at the remaining Big Four. Professionals who worked at Andersen, especially former partners, are acutely aware of the risks inherent in buying into the partnership. New partners, with fewer than five years as members of Andersen, were brutalized financially. Their buy-in loans were collateralized with their partnership units. The collapse of Andersen led to a negative equity situation for them; partners owed hundreds of thousands of dollars and could not divest their units to repay the loans.

A similar fear rippled through KPMG, recently. Under investigation for selling abusive tax shelters, KPMG settled with the Justice Department. The settlement included a fine of $456 million. While KPMG avoided the fate of Andersen, the resulting fine equates to around $300 thousand for each of KPMG’s 1,600 partners.

The declining interest in firm membership is supported by potential changes in firm organization. Accenture and BearingPoint have forsaken the partnership model, and both now trade on public markets. Doubts as to the protections of the limited liability partnership model are causing the Big Four to consider incorporation – instead of partnership.

Once recognized as an elite club in the accounting and consulting industries, the major partnerships are losing their mystique. The firms themselves continue to provide the best services available on the market, but the firms themselves are undergoing a fundamental shift. Every associate used to hope to grow up to become a partner. Senior managers could taste it – and would think of nothing else.

The Big Four’s preferred structure is under attack from the outside. Once considered an almost risk-free investment, we have learned from Andersen and KPMG the contrary. This investment risk is magnified by the erosion of protections offered by the LLP structure. Greener pastures lure talent from the partnership while the legal system lays siege to this venerable institution.