Saturday, February 07, 2009

KPMG's Novel Experiment for 4 Day Work Week Appears Closer to Fruition

Last month KPMG UK introduced a scheme where all of KPMG UK's 11,000 employees could as a group take a voluntary pay cut through either a 4 day work week or a sabbatical in order to avoid any job cuts for employees selectively affected by the global economic crisis...


We've moved. Click here to go to the full post at the new Big Four Blog at Big4.com!



9 comments:

Thoreau said...

KPMG KPMG KPMG. If I were a KPMGer, I would be worried about this blog post and the pending investigations you know are coming. KPMG is partially responsible for the desecration of the financial system or worse, KPMG helping turn the U.S. into the next Japan. The U.S. would be lucky to be a Japan 2, though it seems highly unlikely the U.S. can even achieve such wonderful economic success that has seen the Nikkei decline from over 30,000 to 7,000.


The U.S. unlike Japan is a 70% debt financed consumption based economy unlike Japan which is a savings and production based economy. It took Japan 20 years to arguably rid all its banks fraudulent financials of there bad debts. Everyone knows the financials of the banks are fraudulent but no one seems to care, why? The answer can only be the accounting firms are well connected to the global social fascist cabal.


How will the recessions ever end as long as the financial statements remain fraudulent? The balance sheets and business models are crap and everyone knows, why continue the charade? All the accounting firms are paid by their corporate masters to issue fraudulent financial statements, there can be no doubt all the banks like Citi are bankrupt yet KPMG keeps signing off on its fraudulent financials, why?



Why does anyone believe any of the fraudulent financial statements? Why does anyone listen to anything KPMG or other auditors have to say? Most of the banks are bankrupt yet the financials keep rolling out, no problem. As an angry Citi investor, I have tried to piece together how I lost most of my money.


KPMG audits many of the financials with all their SIV creations which are used to off load bad loans so the losses don’t have to be recognized on the financials in an Enronesque fashion like KPMG’s client Citi (which is bankrupt).


Of course KPMG’s never ending quest for fees does not stop with fraudulent financials, it also purveyed what Mike Hamersley would describe as fraudulent corporate tax shelters (not withstanding Hamersley’s willing participation in many of them) used by most of KPMG’s big banks including Citi, like the REIT transaction which eliminated tax on real estate loans; back to back loans or rate swaps creating interest deductions; financing arrangements generating noneconomic foreign tax credits; the list goes on forever. All KPMG’s big banks used the strategies to eliminate taxes and create what Hamersley would describe as fraudulent book income (except of course for Hamersley’s own tax shelters).


Tim Flynn is a banking guy and was brought in to purportedly clean up KPMG in 05. Yet Flynn prior to his appointment as KPMG CEO was a high level KPMG audit partner before taking over for O’Kelley and had most of his clients involved in all the fraudulent accounting and questionable tax shelters (which according to Hamersley were fraudulent).


There can be no doubt about the fraud as beginning as early as 2003 many were predicting the implosion that would result from the unsustainable lending patterns of KPMG’s banking clients. In fact, most of KPMG’s banks are bankrupt, what to do?


Flynn decided to throw a bunch of tax partners having nothing to do with all KPMG’s bankrupt banks under the bus for individual shelters which were miniscule in relation to all KPMG’s failed fraudulent audits.


Flynn hired Bennett and Holmes to do his dirty work and assist with the DOJ. Flynn had Bennett and Holmes lie to the DOJ according to an email wherein Joe Loonan KPMG’s head lawyer stated that he did not know if any of the allegations were true (“freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose”). Then to seal the deal Flynn denied legal fees to the tax partners he threw under the bus to the DOJ, even Ernst and Young paid its partners legal fees. Why would Flynn do this after O’Kelley had promised to pay the legal fees?


One can only infer to hide the greater tragedy at KPMG, all of the failed fraudulent audits (not to mention after Flynn cut his deal, KPMG was awarded the audit of the DOJ). If I were a KPMGer, I would not only be extremely concerned about all the civil litigation that is coming for the fraudulent audits but the potential criminal actions that must be coming once the books are scoured (which you know they will be in the civil litigation plus the fraud is relatively easy to discern) because KPMGer’s must know by now the first thing Flynn will do is throw you under the bus and cut off legal fees.


As a decimated Citi investor I am looking for any KPMGer to come forward and tell the truth.


Angry Citi shareholder

mike scamersley said...

If you like Geithner and scams, you would love Mike Hamersely, just another financial scam miscreant working for the Government. In fact, Hamersley’s misdeeds are so brazen and he has gotten away with it for so long I heard he should change his name to Mike Scamersley. Mike Scamersley (a public figure who has appeared on Frontline perpetuating his lies) who like Geithner is a tax fraudster in a high level government tax administration position. Scamersley works as a high level tax shelter lawyer for the state of California which is bankrupt, illegally issuing its own currency and confiscating income from citizens. This should come as no surprise since the FTB has working for them one of the biggest tax fraudsters of all, Mike Scamersley, helping to confiscate more income from taxpayers who have honestly filed their own tax returns unlike the thief, Scamersley. On May 24, 2000 at 3:33pmpst Mike Hamersley working at KPMG at the time sent an email to a KPMG senior manager, advising her that their KPMG client had substantial authority to take a sham paper loss if the client sold stock of a subsidiary to the client's lawyer for one dollar. This was outright tax fraud. Further, on June 12, 2000 at 10:18ampst, the same KPMG senior manager sent an email to Mike Hamersly containing copies of the documents effecting Hamersley's fraudulent plan back to 1999 for his review, a classic case of backdating a fraudulent transaction. Also, February 9, 2003, at 1:18 pm one of KPMG’s top executives sent one of KPMG’s top lawyers an email stating that Mike Hamersley had disseminated confidential information to his wife, who worked at Latham and Watkins in clear violation of Section 7216, a criminal statute. In the recent KPMG case, it was also confirmed that Hamersley violated Sections 7216 and 7212 by illegally disclosing confidential information to various parties. Ask Scamersley for all his emails which he illegally late at night obtained in violation of KPMG protocol and stole many for his own personal gain when he sued KPMG (or ask KPMG for the emails, they all still exist). As an aside, Scamersley's fraudulent activities did not stop there, when he obtained his KPMG settlement based on all his lies and theft, Scamersley failed to report the settlement as income under a twisted analysis of Section 104 (or at a minimum conspired to do so as he discussed doing so with several witnesses). How can the FTB employ Scamersley in their tax shelter division when he did not even bother with legal tax shelters but rather engaged in outright fraud and likely continues this sham life of being a crusader? Much more evidence against Hamersley exists related to his fraudulent activities like when he returned his KPMG computer to KPMG, emails state that it was wiped clean with a sophisticated software program, under DOJ standards that makes Scamersley a criminal.

Anonymous said...

What the heck Thoreau is talking about? No wonder you lost your money in Citi.. you are stupid and don't even deserve a reply

Thoreau said...

Anon it is quite simple, KPMG's clients are bankrupt due to unsustainable lending patterns that were predictable going back to 2005. If KPMG is so expert, how could KPMG miss it? The employees will be sued and possibly were criminally negligent. You know for a fact,Flynn the leader of KPMG will not stand behind KPMGers as he threw many tax partners under the bus over some tax shelters which were not only legal but involved no fraud as all the audits of KPMG's now bankrupt banks did. The losses from KPMG's fraudulent audits are in the 100s of Billions. You think I am stupid. you ought to bone up on economics and fractional reserve lending, then check out what Roubini and many others were predicting in 2005.

Anonymous said...

Poor guys.... mixing everything only because you lost money as everyone! poor guys....

Suzanne said...

Check out my LinkedIn Poll on the very subject:
http://is.gd/h2Nm

Anonymous said...

Mike Scamersley, aren't you the same blogger as Thoreau, Whistlewhat, and Angy Citi Shareholder? I am a bit confused by your statements about Hamersely. I read Travails in Tax and personally observed Hamersley's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. He seems like an exceedingly honest guy to me. Didn't KPMG say Hamersely had absolutely no involvement or knowledge of tax shelters in its press release to the Senate Finace Committee after Hamersley testified in October 2003? I read that KPMG press release on the PBS Frontline website. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/interviews/release.html

Tax Partner said...

Thoreau, (and Whistlewhat, Angry Citi Investor, Angry Citi Shareholder–I have to admit it is difficult to keep track of all the aliases you are using to post identical comments while appearing to be different bloggers. Do you talk to yourself also?)

I agree. Your comments about Hamersely just don’t make any sense at all. I too am highly skeptical that your bold statements about Hamersley could be based on any reliable evidence at all. I also read Travails in Tax and personally observed Hamersley’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. He does clearly seem to be an exceedingly honest guy to me. Yeah, how do you explain that KPMG stated Hamersely had absolutely no involvement or knowledge of tax shelters in its press release to the Senate Finace Committee after Hamersley testified in October 2003? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/interviews/release.html See also Hamersley Senate Finance Committee Testimony 003 TNT 204-35 online at http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2003test/102103mhtest.pdf

Are you suggesting Hamersley and KPMG are in cahoots? Wow, that would be a bold strategy seeing as Hamersley sued the crap out of them. Case No. BC 297209, Los Angeles Superior Court (June 23, 2003.), also reported in Tax Notes Today full copy of complaint 2003 TNT 124-5.

I Concur With Tax Partner said...

Whistlewhat (aka Thoreau, Angry Citi Invetor, Angry Citi Shareholder–I have to admit it is difficult to keep track of all the liases you are using to post identical comments while appearing to be different bloggers.):

Surely your comments about Hamersely are an April Fools joke, right? Otherwise, they just don’t make any sense at all. I too am highly skeptical that your bold statements about Hamersley could be based on any reliable evidence at all. I too read Travails in Tax and personally observed Hamersley’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. He seems like an exceedingly honest guy to me too. Yeah, isn't it a fact that KPMG said Hamersely had absolutely no involvement or knowledge of tax shelters in its press release to the Senate Finace Committee after Hamersley testified in October 2003? I read that KPMG press release on the PBS Frontline website. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/interviews/release.html
See also Hamersley Senate Finance Committee Testimony 003 TNT 204-35 online at http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2003test/102103mhtest.pdf

Are you suggesting Hamersley and KPMG are in cahoots? Wow, that would be a bold strategy seeing as Hamersley sued the crap out of them. Case No. BC 297209, Los Angeles Superior Court (June 23, 2003.), also reported in Tax Notes Today full copy of complaint 2003 TNT 124-5