What we get is chapter upon chapter of history with references to the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal and the First 60 Years of Arthur Andersen. Oh yeah, we also get comments from some manager in Asia about how he was surprised about the downfall of his firm.

No interviews with key members of the Enron engagement team or the Houston office. No insight on why the firm failed. The book tries to lead us to think that the creation of Andersen Consulting [Accenture] led to the firm's demise. Hardly, did not the other Big 5 all have consulting practices, and none of these firms has failed. What made Andersen different then the other Big 5? David Duncan did not bring in Enron as a client. Who did? Who were the members of the engagement team? How did Duncan, a relatively junior partner, get to be the lead partner on the engagement? Who was really running the show? [The book makes it sound like Duncan reported to a practice director, which was hardly the case. In fact, this practice director was not even part of the Houston office.]

Still considerable room for someone to step in and do some investigative journalism, and some real work to find out what caused the demise of Andersen stemming from the Houston Enron incident.

30 of 36 found the following review helpful:


Major Disappointment  Jun 30, 2003
The majority of this book was a mere recast of the history of Andersen and a chronology of events. Comments by a few Andersen folks, most of whom go unnamed. Was keeping up with Accenture [Andersen Consulting] really the cause? AC was gone 3 years earlier. All the Big 5 had consulting practices -- why is Andersen the one that is gone? Footnote after footnote of references to the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune and Andersen's History Book.

As a past partner in the Houston office of Andersen [not involved in Enron], I can say that the book clearly misses the mark. To really know what was happening one should explore the culture of the Andersen Houston office, the key players and those who have not been highlighted in the press, the review process, the reason that management did not step in when there was an obvious problem [Enron restatement]. How could the shredding occur? Why did Andersen send down some flunky attorney to Houston[who was only with the firm 2 years and was not even a partner], rather then send the partner in charge of legal. Where were the procedures to replace/remove a partner on an engagement when litigation was threatened? How could Dave Duncun be left in control? Isn't there a conflict here when Dave continues to run the engagement when litigation is threatened [and possibly against him and criminally in this instance] and he remains in charge? Where was the head of risk, and what was he doing? Was Dave Duncan really in charge of the audit, or was that just what the assignments showed? How did Dave Duncan, only a partner for about 5 years, get in charge of the Enron audit? Certainly he did not sell the work.

There is so much missing, and the conclusions are, for the most part, unsupportable leaps.

7 of 7 found the following review helpful:


good, workman-like explanation, approving yet critical  Dec 01, 2004 By Robert J. Crawford
I read this for a writing project and found it one of the best accounts available of what happened to make this company collapse the way it did. While there is occasionally a sense of victimization running through it - the authors all worked for AA or were affiliated with it - it does not stop them from hard-hitting analysis of how a company declined from iconic status as a standard-setter to one that was, well, slowly corrupted and traducing its values (like, the authors contend, all the other big accounting firms).

What this book adds is an analysis of how AA's governance evolved, from a tightly controlled firm with a charismatic leader to a global, highly decentralised one that was impossible to govern. This was a slow, evolutionary development with consequences that no one could have foreseen. Slowly, values eroded, a culture came undone, and the result was, in many cases, a naked scramble for money. In essence, accounting became a doorway to far more lucrative consulting arrangements, and so AA began increasingly to cooperate with those it was supposed to audit as a public service and with independence and integrity (as it clearly did in the past when the firm stood for something).

Where this book is weaker is on the wider context of the economy, which the reader will have to seek elsewhere. Moreover, while the SEC scrutiny - and the indictment that killed the company - may have been unfair, there were so many scandals developing that at least one firm was slated to take a fall. It was AA, as it turned out, somewhat a scapegoat in which many many good people got hurt, but still, in retrospect, it looks very very bad. I cannot feel outrage at its demise, though I do feel sympathy.

Recommended for specialists. This ain't pleasure reading, but the story is one that needs to be told as an ethics case study.

11 of 14 found the following review helpful:


Very interesting prespective  Aug 13, 2003 By Carp67 "carp67"
I was with Andersen for 8 years up until the fall of the firm. This is the first book I have read about the firm the takes a methodical look at what exactly happened at one of the most prestigous firms in the world. If you are interested in Andersen's rise to power and some insight as to what it was like inside during the fall, then its a must read.

2 of 2 found the following review helpful:


Surprisingly interesting book  Aug 22, 2005 By Andrew Wallace
I had to read this book for school, and as one may figure before reading an accounting book, I was planning on it being a little boring. Contrarily, this book was very good. It was written by four ex-employees of Enron and Arthur Anderson, so it is very credible.

The book progressed very smoothly, and it made me very knowledgeable on what so many of us have heard, but so few really know about.

See all 13 customer reviews on Amazon.com