Accordingly, arrogance is the only word to describe such a goof.
KPMG served as the independent audit firm of several of the largest sub-prime mortgage lenders. Identify the advantage and disadvantages of a heavy concentration of audit clients in one industry or sub-industry.
Citation: Danos, Paul. Eichenseher, John W. "Audit Industry Dynamics: Factors Affecting Changes in Client Industry Market Shares. Journal of Accounting Research." Institute of Professional Accounting. JSTOR.ORG. Vol. 20. No 2. Part II. Autumn 1982.
Full Citation (as posted in Jstor):
Audit Industry Dynamics: Factors Affecting Changes in Client-Industry Market Shares: Paul Danos and John W. Eichenseher. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 20, No. 2, Part II (Autumn 1982), pp. 604-616 (article consists of 13 pages). Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Accounting Research Center, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
The advantages and disadvantages of a heavy concentration of audit clients in one industry or sub-industry:
From Audit Industry Dynamics: Factors Affecting Changes in Client Industry Market Shares. Journal of Accounting Research, "[d]uring the past decade, the structure of the market for public accounting services -- particularly audit services -- has received scrutiny from regulators, practitioners, and researchers. A major focus has been on supplier (audit firm) size, and especially on the large shares of markets held by a subset of firms called the Big Eight." Rather, a means by which one might perceive this subset of firms.
"One hypothesis is that the Big Eight function as a cartel and charge higher than competitively warranted fees." Okay then, what about at&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or Sprint? Other than telephone companies, what about Dish, Comcast, or Clear Wireless? Why can these companies such unwarranted "hidden costs," whereas other companies cannot? Marketing within the United States is unscrupulous and deceitful. "... The Big Eight as a group tended to charge lower fees than non-Big Eight firms." This, too, is far more common in U.S. corporate marketing schemes than not. Rather, this commonality is what differentiates successful corporations from corporations and companies alike that go bankrupt. Hey, how about political endorsements and the perception of "Political Corruption" versus the perception of "Political Servitude"? That all falls under the same protective / protected umbrella.
The meaning of this illustration between the corrupt downfall of Enron, the fraudulent intents or deception employed by at&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Dish, Comcast, and Clear Wireless, and the perception of "... The Big Eight as a group tended to charge lower fees than non-Big Eight firms" is to showcase the hypocritical sense of the legalities enacted within the United States. Why is this seen as dishonest or fraudulent or deceptive / deceitful, when that is seen as a standard, or as traditional, or as a regular practice? Bill Gates -- who steals the progressive ideas and formats the framework slightly differently, then saturates the market with his cheaply made renditions -- is praised as a brilliant marketing genius, whereas Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are understood as merely the initial producers or idealistic manufacturers? Legalities with the United States are, then, absolutely a matter of perceptions and therefore shady.
From "Subprime Lending Risks" (of Bear Stearns Companies, BSC, from Wikinvest):
Subprime lending refers to the practice of extending credit or loans to borrowers who fail to qualify for prime or market rates due to their less-than-optimal credit scores. The interest rates associated with subprime loans are typically much higher than those associated with prime loans; the rationale is that borrowers with lower credit scores present a higher risk of default and must therefore pay a considerable risk premium. Subprime borrowers can be extremely sensitive to interest rates. As rates rise these borrowers, many of whom have adjustable-rate mortgages, find themselves unable to meet their debt obligations.
Investment banks such as Bear Stearns generate profit by bundling subprime mortgages and reselling them to other investors in the form of asset-backed securities. As the number of defaults among subprime borrowers has risen, the overall demand for these securitized mortgages has fallen significantly. This, in turn, has caused the value of many of these mortgage-backed securities to decline considerably, which has left Bear holding large numbers of devalued securities that few are willing to buy. Bear has been forced to write-down, or lower the estimated market value of, these securities, which has taken a big