Date: 08/15/2000 2:52 PM Subject: S7-13-00 To Whom It May Concern: Arthur Andersen, et al., are reckless and irresponsible. They can't have it both ways: They either are consultants, or they are not consultants. These folks have a simple choice to make: They can offer compliance services, period, or not offer compliance services, period. If they offer them, then they should be made to get out of peddling all manner of consulting services. If they don't, they can sell whatever clients are willing to buy. The first responsibility of the CPA providing attest and valuation services is to be independent--in fact, word, and deed. The relentless cross-selling and -delivery of consulting services that goes on in bigger firms--national, regional, local--is a massive conflict of interest. It compromises independence. How can the auditors be 'independent' if they're passing on the internal controls of a computer system their colleagues on the consulting side sold and installed? This is just goofy. The current rules also encourage incompetence. In one CPA firm near our market area, I know first-hand that the audit partners and tax partners try to dictate valuation results to the valuation guy. In another office of that same firm, the partner-in-charge nominally specializes in IT services, except during the first five months of each year, when he morphs into a tax-and-audit guy. Late last December, he asked me for help on a valuation report for an ESOP client. Two weeks ago, he called me wondering how to do a fairness opinion--and said he thought he ought to charge for two or three hours of time for it (when he should have charged about $50,000). If the compliance people don't like low margins and ungrateful clients, they can get out of the business. No one requires them to be there. But if they opt to be there, then they need to be as pure as the driven snow. Don't let these bullies push you around. Most sincerely, Warren D. Miller, CPA-ABV, CMA