Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

Andersen was willing to certify pretty much anything these companies wanted to do as fully legal and above-board, because these were big clients and Andersen didn't want to lose them to some other accounting firm by inconveniently insisting that they keep honest books.

Anecdotally, this happens at all levels of accounting.

I've hired two accountants in my lifetime. Both times I was asked something along the lines of, "I can be as as clean or dirty as you want me to be. Just let me know now, before we get started."

View on HN

I'm reminded of an anecdote I heard once: When interviewing an accountant, the founder showed the accountant some financial and asked the accountant "What story do these numbers tell?" to which the accountant replied "What story do you want them to tell?"

That kind of anecdote comes in an insane number of variations. Even if it's based in truth, it's probably been distorted through retelling.

In other words, don't try to pass off jokes as anecdotes.

Shrug. Then add me to the list of someone who had this asked of me directly. Twice.

Maybe you'll find it interesting that the Greek word for joke is anecdoto.

That is interesting, thank you.

"What story do you want them to tell?"

Welcome to the non-black-and-white world of gray. That mentality goes far beyond just accounting. Anything beyond a basic measurement is open to interpretation.

It is definitely true that accounting is not at all straightforward, it's actually really challenging to figure out what's really going on in an enterprise, it's not just some arithmetic.

Which is why an accountant who is good at figuring out what's really going on is so valuable.

An accountant who specializes in making the numbers tell the story the CEO wants them to tell is not an accountant who can tell you anything useful about the company's financials. If you just want propaganda/marketting instead of accounting I guess that's fine, so long as you don't end up going to jail for it.

That things are open to interpretation doesn't mean there's no difference between trying to figure out what's going on, and trying to spin it to what you'd like to be going on.

Like a boss whose reports only tell him what he wants to hear. I'd tell the "what story do you want them to tell" guy -- what would I pay you for if you're just going to tell me the story I already know I'd like to be true?

Of course, plenty of people do pay that guy, because they're just trying to put one over on everyone else.

That is the complete opposite of any of my experience.

CPAs are generally extremely conservative. And unless you are paying them immense amounts of money, they are almost always reticent to do anything even remotely risky.

After all, their license and this livelyhood is on the line.

I've been a chartered accountant in a past career.

From my experience a sizeable percentage Chartered Accountant's / CPAs are happy to do whatever they are directed to as long there is plausible deniability (and you can generally find that if you look closely (or don't look closely enough).

I don't see this as special to accountant's I see it as a function of human nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com