2017 Oscars

PwC (the w is lowercase; don't ask, it's a long story) isn't an international company with branches in other countries. It's a network with independent companies in each country. PwC USA has only branches in the USA.

Thus, PwC USA isn't, as @eddiel suggested, "one of the biggest firms in the world". There are many bigger companies. PwC USA is the biggest firm in the PwC network, but that's it.

How we are structured

 

Hmmm, I caught the job section of the website which says:

Country job search
We have offices in 776 locations in 157 countries.

Maybe I misunderstand what the website says. Wikipedia says:

PwC is a network of firms in 157 countries, 756 locations, with more than 223,000 people. As of 2015, 22% of the workforce worked in Asia, 26% in North America and Caribbean and 32% in Western Europe. The company's global revenues were $35.9 billion in FY 2016, of which $15.2 billion was generated by its Assurance practice, $9.1 billion by its Tax practice and $11.5 billion by its Advisory practice.

I think you're hung up on the definition of what a corporation is and where the offices are. If they're all part of one thing, for all practical purposes it's a global firm.

 

I've been a lawyer in the Legal Depertment of PwC Germany for 21 years now. I know what I'm taking about.

 

Just saw Manchester by the Sea on blu-ray. I can understand Denzel's reaction better now (but haven't seen his movie yet). Affleck played a pretty much one-dimensional character throughout, with pretty much the same expression and boring speaking style throughout.

As to the movie, although it is better than a lot of others, I think it was way over-hyped. If there's not going to be a riveting story, the characters need to be interesting and pull me in. But here, the Affleck character was just such an annoying, boring, idiot that I soon could barely even stand to see him. Way over-hyped movie and performance.

 

What was their US revenue? $10B+? I think that makes them one of the largest firms in the world, both within that industry and outside, don't you? Obviously the one office responsible for the Oscars isn't making $10B, but they'll be rather healthy in the gross revenue area.

Anyway, I wasn't going to go into the minutia of how these firms are set up in my comment and I do feel that saying "PwC is one of the largest firms in the world" sums it up quite succinctly. Especially since even PwC reports and comments on their world wide performance.

You'll know more about the details than I would as my view would be very high level.

However, I think you can agree, it can be quite confusing for people to understand the minutia because firms with global offices often talk about their global revenues, etc, like @Vidiot pointed out above. I have to agree with him here, it's pretty much a global firm.

If it matters...although I'm not a lawyer working for PwC, I have been working in finance for 26 years so I'm not a stranger to this.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue or be difficult here so I'll leave it at that.

 

I remember when Affleck went up to get his award and they cut to Denzel. I thought "He's not happy about that" and it seemed quite awkward when Affleck mentioned Denzel in his acceptance speech. I think even Affleck was thinking "Wow he's really pissed off". I've not seen either movie yet so I can't comment much on who deserved or not. I'd say the clips they showed gave an edge to Denzel but I'm far more familiar with his over all work so I'd probably lean that way anyway. I have seen a couple of news stories trying to link Denzel's reaction, not to him losing, but to him losing to Affleck, someone who was accused of sexual assault.

 

I've not seen "Fences" yet - will watch the Blu-ray this weekend - but Affleck's performance in "Manchester" was excellent. The comments earlier about how he was "one-note" completely missed the nuances - he did great work in the film.

If Washington was "pissed off" - which I have no idea if he was - it wasn't because he lost to someone who gave a bad performance. I'd be shocked to learn that Washington actually thought Affleck didn't deserve the award.

I just watched the clip - I can't figure out where Washington "looks pissed" here:

Casey Affleck winning Best Actor_Ganador al Mejor Actor OSCAR 2017 - Video Dailymotion

 

Ah could be just reading more into it. That would be a fair enough comment to make now that I watch it again. But that was my initial thought. I always think of Denzel as, often, having a resting "I'm annoyed with you" look on his face. I think it's cool though.

 

I think what he's saying is, it's a network of companies, not one company with many global branches, so PwC USA can't decide that they're going to send Mr. Oscars to work at PwC Bolivia.

 

Yes I completely understand what he's saying. Anyway, it's all good.

 

Now that is in his 60s, it's not as true, but for a long time I had the theory that all women loved Denzel! Washington and Sting: it was really tough to find women who didn't swoon for those guys!

Anyway, like I said, I have no idea what Washington's emotions were when he didn't win. He had a reasonable expectation of victory - it appeared to be a tight race between him and Affleck - but I'm guessing he was more disappointed than angry.

Especially given the quality of Affleck's performance. I just can't believe another actor would begrudge Affleck the trophy based on that performance.

Besides, Washington already has two Oscars - share the wealth, man!

 

They could ask the employee to go work for their "Network" affiliate offices on the other side of the world. If you do a Google search, you'll see at least fifty skyscrapers worldwide that have very large "PriceWaterhouseCoopers" logos on the side. Network, one company, multiple companies... I think it's a scam to avoid paying taxes. (A skill on which they have 100 years' experience.) The Wikipedia entry on PwC is eye-opening in terms of how many times they've been investigated and how many fines they've had to pay.

Hollywood Reporter has more on the evolving scandal today:

Oscars Producer Michael De Luca Breaks Silence on Backstage Chaos: "It Was Like the Hindenburg"

One theory is that they may put pressure on PwC to donate their fee for this Oscar ceremony and give it to charity. There's different opinions on whether the Academy will fire them completely, but it's doubtful, given that the company does a lot more than just the Oscar ballots.

 

Then you would be absurdly wrong.

We pay taxes like every other company. There are legal reasons why there is an independent company in every country. Some jurisdictions don't allow ownership of audit companies by anyone but CPAs from that country, e.g. Furthermore, liability infection risk is mitigated.

The Big 4 are moving towards more of a "global firm" approach. But with the legislation what it is, that is still a way ahead.

 

Did you read the Wikipedia section on PriceWaterhouseCoopers "Controversies":

PricewaterhouseCoopers - Wikipedia

My jaw dropped when I read the 21 descriptions of various PwC discrepancies, lawsuits, disputes, and fines over the years. There's a good 2-hour documentary that could be made on the tax-avoidance schemes listed; the Luxembourg Leaks was a good one.

On the other hand, if I had a few hundred million dollars and needed to hide a lot of the money in a barely-legal offshore account in Panama, no question I'd call up PwC at the main LA office on Figueroa Street and hire them.

 

Go stick with your alternative facts, then. I hear it's all the rage over there.

Every professional services firm gets sued for alleged mistakes, because people think they have deep pockets. Sometimes the mistakes were really made, sometimes it's just a scheme to get money from them. Neswflash: In every company, mistakes are made. What if the viewers could sue the studios and networks for every bad movie or TV series they make? What if you were sued for every bad or wrong decision you make?

You may live on a professional Paradise Island with few regulations and no litigation risk, but we in the real world have a slightly more complicated legal environment to live in.

I'm more than happy to inform you about the regulatory and legal environment of professional services firms (preferably via PM, as this discussion leads away from the real theme of this thread), but I won't stand for smearing a whole profession and, by extension, accusing me personally of working for a sort of criminal operation. I'm not sure that I can alleviate your seemingly irrational hatred of this profession, but you may still get some new information.

 

I think you're dangerously close to a political discussion. I promise, I didn't vote for anybody in favor of alternative facts -- don't characterize all Americans as having one philosophy. We're a nation of vastly different people.

Do you deny there have been dozens and dozens and dozens of lawsuits against PwC for sketchy deductions and fraud? Again, I'm just quoting what's on Wikipedia, which is an international encyclopedia -- there's a long list of references for the 21 lawsuits mentioned on the PwC page. Read that and tell me I'm mistaken. If Wikipedia has the facts wrong, I suggest you get PwC's vast network of PR people to work clearing their name. They aren't my charges -- they're reports cited by Wikipedia.

Again, I have no axe to grind, but I'm also just looking at the company from a distance. I have no vested interest since I don't work for them. I don't think you can speak objectively if you're that closely connected to them and their reputation affects your livelihood. The Oscar scandal has put a magnifying glass on PwC's operation, and and I suspect I'm not the only person who takes a closer look at them and says, "whoa, these guys are involved in all kinds of very shady financial deals." There's always the case of a firm who is just barely on the right side of the law, but they're morally corrupt and obnoxious about it.

Bear in mind I'm also up in arms about Apple hiding $246 billion in overseas profits using stuff like "The Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich," which I think is an appalling (but, as I said, barely legal) tax avoidance scheme, the kind that PwC specialize in:

Apple has $246 BILLION in cash, nearly all overseas
Apple’s tax strategies: ‘Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich’

 

As Upton Sinclair wrote: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

One of the many reasons I don't buy anything new from Apple.

 

I don't think I am.

Don't characterize all thoses working in professional services firms as having one philosophy. We're a profession of vastly different people.

On the contrary. I explicitely stated that professional services firms, esp. the Big 4, get sued all the time. That doesn't mean there is always merit to the claims. But sometimes, mistakes were made. How would you personally like to be open to litigation for mistakes you make?

Given your posts, I doubt that.

See, that's what makes me angry. You have no insight in the profession, you seem to have only a very small clue as to what professional services firms actually do, but you have no problem flinging dirt like "morally corrupt and obnoxious about it". Why don't you get a grip on the work of accountancy firms first and then you can build an informed opinion.

And that the Oscar mistake is supposed to be a "scandal" now, says more about the "scandal" obsessed world and Hollywood's distorted view on reality than it says about PwC.

For the information of all the readers of this thread, could you please provide us with a list and a short description of a few of these "all kinds of very shady financial deals" and the allegedly malevolent role PwC has played in them? Otherwise it's just hearsay of the "People are telling me..." or the "I hear people are talking about..." kind (without wanting to get too political ). If you don't want to back up these accusations, maybe it would be better to word them differently.

I repeat my offer to take this to PM, so as to not take this thread too much off topic.

 

And a fifth person on the "Exile" list! Jesus.

Yeah, this is a principle of life that took me years to appreciate and understand. Scientists call this a choice-supportive bias, where when you have a stake in something, you tend to be biased to only see the good in it, or only want to see it succeed. This is a good reason why operating system debates or audio hardware discussions can quickly turn into religious arguments. And religious arguments themselves are biased as well. "It's right because I say it's right!" It's hard to debate rationally with somebody who feels that way.

Me, if I work for a company, I'll defend them from an unwarranted attack, but this is more than 21 lawsuits and major cases of fraud and investigation, through the NY Times, The Times of London, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and on and on. PwC was reportedly behind helping the Russians evade taxes at Yukos. Even Willie Nelson hates them, since they represented him with his U.S. accounting that ultimately led to his 1990 bankruptcy and $32M in tax losses (but he eventually came back). I'm not the person leveling these charges: these are all correctly reported on Wikipedia by very well-respected news sources. I think there's a point in life where you have to step back and be objective and see the truth for what it is, and don't come up with excuses. I have no problem with somebody who says, "yeah, the company I work for is kind of a scuzzball, but I do a good job and so do the people I work with." That could well be true... but it doesn't make these couple-of-dozen stories false.

Yeah, as much of a Mac-head as I am, I don't pretend that Apple is a moral company or that they always make wise decisions. I can recall some 1990s T-shirts that said "Love the Mac... Hate Apple," and that covers my feelings.

Getting back to the Oscars: Pete Hammond of the Deadline:Hollywood news site makes a good case that while the accounting screw-up was baffling (and also damaging to the company), the Motion Picture Academy should use this opportunity to revise the way they take the annual Best Picture nominations, which are done through a weird weighting scale:

Pete Hammond’s Notes On The Season: Final Oscar Thoughts, Plus A Call To Junk Another Bad Pricewaterhouse Idea

(BTW, that is their actual headline -- I'm not being snarky.)

 

It's always entertaining when people who don't know anything about a subject start voicing opinions. Mention accounting to many (most) people and you'll first see their eyes glaze and then you'll get a variety of viewpoints that mostly date back to Dickens and Bob Cratchit.

So, very briefly, the craft, art, and science of accounting revolves around the decision, in the case of every economic transaction, of whether or not the party involved wishes to realize more or less profit from the transaction. Any individual business event may be treated in a number of different ways for accounting purposes and any and all of these are most like likely acceptable under the standards of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.) If you read the year end audit statements of any corporation, you'll find that the only relevant sentence is the one where the audit firm avows that the company's financial statements have been prepared in accordance with these standards. (For which statement the corporation has paid the auditors a very, very hefty fee.)

So why, you might ask, would a company make a decision that would show less profit than accounting standards allow? Isn't the point of a business to show profit, and as much profit as possible? Maybe an example would be helpful (I lied about this being brief.)

-You buy a green pepper from Walmart for a dollar. How much profit does Walmart make from this transaction?

First you have to determine the gross profit, which is the revenue, in this case a dollar, less the amount that Walmart paid for the green pepper. This gets tricky. Walmart, of course, has no idea how much it paid for that specific green pepper. Walmart buys millions of green peppers and the price it pays may change on an hourly basis. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that on the day Walmart bought the pepper that you purchased, they were paying 25 cents per pepper. Let's also say that three days later, when you bought the pepper, that Walmart now had to pay fifty cents per pepper. And let's further say that over the course of an accounting year, Walmart paid an average of 35 cents per pepper.

So, when you paid a dollar for the pepper, Walmart could say that they made a profit of 75 cents, if they say their cost was 25 cents, or they could say their profit was 50 cents if they used the current replacement cost, or 65 cents if they used the average cost. Any of these would be acceptable under accounting principles as long as they used the same method throughout the period.

Then once they've decided how much gross profit they made, they have to calculate the net profit, which means subtracting the expenses they incurred to bring the pepper to your store and include things like the cost of the trucks that picked it up and the wages and benefits of the employees who put it on the shelf and the utility costs of the store that stocked it along with local property taxes and a million other expense items, many of which also have accounting treatments that allow the company to show more or less profit.

In a nutshell, they might want to show more profit to make the stockholders happy and they might want to show less profit because they're taxed on it.

And then, once they've made those decisions and generated a final profit figure, they turn their hired accountants and tax experts loose on a dizzyingly complex tax code and tell them to interpret everything in a manner which requires them to pay the smallest amount of tax possible, even if it means hiding money away in a foreign country for a thousand years.

And sometimes the accountants do so and the government accountants disagree and judgments are tendered and lawsuits are filed.

But ultimately it's all just numbers and has absolutely nothing to do with a star struck accountant snapping pictures of pretty actresses and not paying attention to his stack of envelopes.

 

wait....are we still talking abut the Oscars? what is happening?

 

A guy got distracted by Emma Stone's booty and the world exploded

 

It is, indeed, a booty of power, one that can be used for good or evil. A booty that can heal the sick, bring joy to the soul or topple great empires.

 

Thanks! An article worth reading and some good observations regarding some of the recent BP winners:

and