IBM Getting PwC Consulting for $3.5 Billion 209
MoThugz writes: "This Yahoo! News article reports that IBM will be buying PriceWaterhouseCoopers Consulting for a cool $3.5 billion in cash and stock. From the page: 'The purchase is aimed at boosting slowing revenues in the computer giant's large services business, which now accounts for more revenue than its well-known computers and mainframes. ... The merger gives IBM, the world's largest supplier of computers and computer services, the consulting arm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the world's largest accounting firm. The combined IBM-PriceWaterhouseCoopers will rank a close second to top consultant Accenture Ltd. , formerly Andersen Consulting.'"
Couldn't they just hire them? (Score:1)
If they're trying to boost revenue, wouldn't it be cheaper to just hire them as consultants?
Re:Couldn't they just hire them? (Score:1, Insightful)
You set that up deliberately, didn't you?
Fine, I'll bite.
Remember the age old adage:
If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Made In Prolonging The Problem.
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Remember, the new corporate scrutiny will only increase revenue for consulting firms, since the consulting firms are hired to "straighten out the books".
As far as "service&consulting being the last refuge of the Damned" goes... I don't think it applies to financial consulting. Only to software/engineering/research consulting.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Not quite. PricewaterhouseCoopers are really two organizations. The consulting side does systems integration, large software implementations, and advises on supply chain management and so forth. It's separate from the accounting/auditing side, which will either become more profitable because more corporations need better accounting, or less profitable because the "Big 5" are no longer trusted by shareholders and corporations look further afield, to smaller (but still sizeable by anyone's standards) accounting firms.
IBM are buying the consulting side. Now's probably a good time to do that, since it will be cheap as not many corporates are spending a lot of money on consulting right now, but IBM can leverage it to support outsourcing, which they're big on (and corporations are spending money on, because it saves money).
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Gerstner did a pretty good job changing IBM from an old mainframe company in a PC world to a profitable service company. He, like almost all good CEOs, used aggressive accounting. In IBM's case it was the assumptions on their pension, and some income from what is known in street parlance as one time items (sales of assets or businesses, and some of their licensing agreements with up front payments). It happened that an enterprising reporter from the NYT scooped the street on figuring out how much of their earnings in 2001 were a result of this shortly after Enron filed for bankruptcy. When the story broke IBM's credibility dropped rapidly, and their lower earnings this year didn't improve the new guy's reputation much either. They aren't broken and will continue to be a very dominant force in technology, but that doesn't mean that has little to do with the current stock price movements.
From my quite limited experience with consultants I would guess that your quote refers to the employees of consulting firms, the firms themselves mint money. Thats what created one of the biggest problems with accountants.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Earnings per share shouldn't go down in the medium-term because PwCC/Monday was profitable and IBM is paying mostly in cash. In the short-term, though, IBM will probably take a big charge to restructure their own consulting organization (by restructure I mean fire many people, of course) and make PwCC fire many people as well.
My prediction? 1+1=1 here.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
That's true! Maybe that's why HP ended up not doing the deal... $18 billion, can you imagine? The PwCC partners must be pulling their hair out having missed that opportunity! Although, since I believe HP proposed an all stock deal and HP's stock price is down by 50% from a year ago, in a way the price has only dropped 60%, from $9b to $3.5b, and now they're getting mostly cash.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
When IBM started their big services kick one of the first things they did was to aquire the backend to Macromedia's educational software development system back end called Pathware and jack the prices through the roof. Now obviously this is profitable because one of the juciest target audiances for this program is public school districts --ie tax dollars. How's that for free market strategy?
Knowing that this is the kind of services growth strategy that IBM uses along with their alleged mobster like patent strategies I'd be a bit concerned to hear they're getting into accounting in a big way.
That was fast (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey, aren't you from Ande-"
"Hmm? Nope! Nope, never heard of them! I'm from *checks card* uhh, Accenture, and I am a *checks card*
Re:That was fast (Score:1, Informative)
Re:That was fast (Score:1)
Re:That was fast (Score:2)
They just use the engines from their massive shreaders for printing instead.
Re:That was fast (Score:2, Informative)
The other 4 accounting firms also have consulting divisions, that are in various stages of separation from the parent auditing company. Ernst & Young is still together, PWC is obviously spliting now, KPMG apears to still be part of the audit firm, and Delotte & Touche is also still together, I believe. E&Y is the least likely to split up, becuase most of their services are of the tax and financial type. However, they are all more likely to split now that sentiment is pretty strong against auditors providing consulting services.
Re:That was fast (Score:2)
Er...
E&Y sold off their consulting division to Cap Gemini in 2000. [com.com] Hence Cap Gemini is now Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. [cgey.com]
PwC is now getting rid of their consultants, and have been trying to for a number of years now.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (or D&T in the US), has renamed their consulting unit Braxton Consulting, and is either going to spin them off or sell them off at some point.
KPMG spun off their consulting unit, the unoriginally named KPMG Consulting. (KCIN is their ticket symbol).
As you did get right, Anderson and Anderson Consulting split quite a while ago... mostly over how to split up the profits in the firm. For a while there you would get proposals from both Andersen's Consulting unit and Andersen Consulting, and they'd actually fight over the work... AC had to drop the Andersen name and pay $1 Billion to Andersen as part of the settlement. I'm sure looking back its the best Billion dollars they've ever spent.
Basically accountants can't be in the consulting business anymore -- clients don't want to deal with the appearance that there might be something sketchy going on, and the law recently makes it pretty much impossible for them to do so anyway in wake of the Enron fiasco (not that there is any evidence that accounting/consulting ties had anything to do with it). They were good cash cows back in the day of the multi-year multi-million dollar ERP implementations...
Re:Who's dumping who? (Score:3, Informative)
From Accenture's IPO prospectus:
"Until August 7, 2000, we had contractual relationships with Andersen Worldwide and Arthur Andersen under certain agreements whereby we and our "member firms," which are now our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and Arthur Andersen and its member firms, on the other hand, were two stand-alone business units linked through various member firm agreements to Andersen Worldwide, a single coordinating entity. On December 17, 1997, the Accenture member firms requested binding arbitration of claims that Andersen Worldwide and the member firms of Arthur Andersen, among other things, had breached or failed to perform material obligations owed to the Accenture member firms under the member firm agreements.
"On August 7, 2000, the parties to the arbitration were notified that the tribunal appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce in its final award, dated July 28, 2000, had ruled that Andersen Worldwide had breached its material obligations under the member firm agreements and that the Accenture member firms were excused from any further obligations to Andersen Worldwide and Arthur Andersen as of August 7, 2000. Under the terms of the final award, Accenture, and each of the member firms comprising it, was required to cease using the Andersen name or any derivative thereof, no later than December 31, 2000. On January 1, 2001, we began to conduct business under the name Accenture.
"On December 19, 2000, Andersen Worldwide and Arthur Andersen LLP, on behalf of themselves and all other Arthur Andersen member firms, partners, shareholders and others, and Accenture Partners, S.C. and Accenture LLP, on behalf of themselves and all other Accenture member firms, partners, shareholders and others, executed a binding memorandum of understanding agreement to settle and resolve all existing and potential disputes among the parties concerning the implementation of the final award and the separation of the Accenture member firms from Andersen Worldwide and Arthur Andersen, including the discharge and release of all obligations of parties under the terminated member firm agreements between the Accenture member firms and Andersen Worldwide. The memorandum of understanding agreement provided for the parties to enter into a number of definitive agreements with respect to services, subleases, releases and indemnities and to finalize other arrangements among the parties. It also contained provisions for specified uses by Accenture of its former name. On March 1, 2001, Accenture, Andersen Worldwide and Arthur Andersen completed implementation of the memorandum of understanding agreement by executing releases and indemnities, finalizing other arrangements among the parties and entering into services agreements..."
Internal pressure to split? (Score:2)
Of course, in the last 6 months, it's only got stronger, and now there's significant client pressure as well.
Re:That was fast (Score:4, Informative)
In the beginning... there was Arthur Andersen, they founded a computer and strategy consulting company called Andersen Consulting. It didn't take many years for Andersen Consulting to grow larger than Arthur Andersen itself. Now Andersen Consulting had to pay each year large amounts of money to their parent company, because they couldn't make enough money on their own.
Now the people at Andersen Consulting wanted to break from Arthur Andersen, because they thought the yearly payments they made to Arthur Andersen was slowing down their growth. Arthur Andersen however didn't want to let Andersen Consulting go, so a legal battle began. As a part of the settlement in this legal battle (sometimes during year 2000), Andersen Consulting agreed to change their name to Accenture.
So basically the people here hate Arthur Andersen and they've been laughing their asses of because of Arthur Andersen & Enron.
Re:That was fast (Score:1)
No more Monday? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No more Monday? (Score:1)
Re:No more Monday? (Score:2)
I can think of no better way to drive employee morale into the very bottom of the old outhouse like having to work at "Monday" every damned day of the bloody week. When I have a bad day at work on a Tuesday, if someone asks I say "Monday's still here."
Mondays suck. Then, I hear PwC did too. For sure the consultant that picked such a scary name for a company sucked at thier job.
Anyway, I bet there's a bunch of PwC workers jumping up and down screaming "W00t!! No more Monday!!!"
G'nite, folks.
Soko
Re:No more Monday? (Score:2)
However, if the IBM deal fails like the HP deal did, then perhaps Monday will return.
Two points: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Two points: (Score:1)
Last year PwC was in the midst of a deal with Hewlett-Packard when it blew up because of disputes over PwC's price tag
Re:Two points: (Score:2)
To answer your question, probably about the same since the unit that's being sold has sweet FA to do with accounting.
Is it because they Like donkeys? (Score:1, Funny)
http://www.introducingmonday.co.uk
http://www.introducingmonday.com
(Was the official site)
Cross-Industry Convergence (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this freak anybody else out at all?
Re:Cross-Industry Convergence (Score:1)
Re:Cross-Industry Convergence (Score:2)
Real things freak me out like DRM, or National ID's... Karl Marx's idea's were just crafted to either get or help someone get political leverage.
The revolution of business and technology is scarry because it could infringe on our lives, or it could be beneficial - helping each person become more free and "closely-independant" than ever. But what you shouldn't fear is the big picture - it's the little ones that are the most threatening.
Who shall examine this "convergence" and see what threat there really is?
Re:Cross-Industry Convergence (Score:2)
The revolution of business and technology is scarry because it could infringe on our lives, or it could be beneficial - helping each person become more free and "closely-independant" than ever.
Don't look for the evolution of business and technology to promote any kind of "free" and "closely-independent" person in society. Rather, look for the exact opposite.
Fundamentally, commercial success relies upon your dependent relationship based upon commercial transactions with suppliers of goods and services.
Look for suppliers to:
Dependency is moving largely into the emotional arena, too, as advertisements tend to target people so as to get them to think they need that new CD, that wireless phone, etc. If there were a way for advertisements to mentally condition you to be addicted to their product (I don't mean obvious physiologically addictive products like nicotine, alcohol), then believe it would be done. Can you imagine any product more succesful than one in which customers thought they'd die without it and feel completely satisfied only temporarily at each moment of purchase?
In the modern world, we're at an unprecedented level of interdependency already. If the trucks that bring food to my local grocery store stopped running today, then I'd starve within a few weeks.
Things to note (Score:1)
Re:Things to note (Score:1)
If they can manage it right. IIRC, EDS had the same big idea when they bought A.T. Kearney. After that, it was all down hill for EDS. As a former employee of EDS, and a current employee of IBM, I'm not happy to hear this.
Re:Things to note (Score:2)
Re:Things to note (Score:2)
And, by the way, a list of practices on a website does not always tell the real story of what is beign done.
Before making a comment, read this... (Score:5, Interesting)
These figures are off the top of my head, please correct me if wrong.
Consulting made up ~25% of IBM's 18 Billion in revenue last year. It's been a significant part of IBM for a long time and many credit the consulting arm of IBM for pulling IBM through the '90s. IBM is *much* more than a harddrive manufacturer or computer hardware company.
If you have a hard time understanding this, put it this way... IBM was the Microsoft of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Back then, Computers were mostly for *accounting* and various services that you would hire consultants for. IBM took advantage of this and became big. I question Microsoft, because after ~10 years as a substantial Monopoly, they haven't successfully branched into another area and their largest competition is given away for free.
Anyways, I figured a consulting explanation was in order for anybody who wants to post a *WHY WOULD IBM BUY A CONSULTING FIRM?* comment.
BTW, does anybody know what happened to the name "Monday"? I thought PWC consulting was changing it's name to "Monday". Am I wrong?
"Monday" (Score:1, Redundant)
Just a guess.
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
-a
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:1)
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
PwC consulting has absolutely nothing to do with PwC Financial services in the operational sense. Secondly, Linux Consulting accounts for an absolutely tiny fraction of GS revenues.
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:1)
IBM's Investor Relations Website [ibm.com] shows that IBM Global Services (IGS) made up $35 billion (41%) of IBM's $85 billion in revenues for 2001. According to the annual report, IGS operated at a 27.5% gross profit margin ($9.6B). This is almost directly comparable to the hardware division, which pulled in $33.3 billion (39% of IBM total revenue) at a gross profit margin of 27.7%($9.2B).
Your point is quite valid, however. IBM wouldn't have survived the early 90s if not for the fact that it diversified and became an IT solutions provider. Its strategy, not a secret, is to be the "one stop shop" for your IT needs: IGS drafts a plan (with pricing options for IBM and non-IBM vendors), and can set you up with the solution you need, be it IBM or non-IBM parts. Of course, you'll probably get a touch of a discount for shopping IBM - call it a bulk deal.
PwC's IT consultancy was looking for a buyer, and IBM wanted to swallow a bit more market share in that area. Plus, at $3.5 billion for a division that brought in $4.6 billion last year, the price was right -- certainly much "more right" than the $18 billion price tag that Hewlett-Packard turned its nose up at last year.
Also, don't forget that IGS will not only sell you IBM hardware, but also IBM software, which is far and away the most profitable division of IBM. While software pulled in only $12.9 billion in revenue, but made $10.6 billion in profit at a gross margin of 82.5%.
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2, Informative)
As far as your figures, for 2nd Quarter 2002, IBM Global Services (consulting) revenue was 8.7b out of 19.7b (44%) total. Hardware made up 6.7b/19.7b (34%) and software 3.3b/19.7b (16.5%), and the rest other units.
A subsection of IBM Global Service (BIS - Business Intellience Services) will be merged as a new unit with PWC. Apparently PWC has/had 45% of the Fortune500 companies as clients.
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:3)
About Monday, PWC was in the process of selling the consulting division to the public through an IPO, and the accountants wanted the name for themselves, so the consulting division came up with Monday. Since IBM is likely to just call it a small part of IBM Global Services, the name it currently has is pretty irrelevant.
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
How so? Most of us are probably reading Slashdot right now on desktop computers descended from the Intel-based architecture introduced with the IBM Personal Computer some 20 years ago...
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:1)
I doubt 25% of that was consulting. Unless they really overcharge as much as I thought...
And as far as the name "Monday," I think this purchase once again proves... IBM + Any Company = IBM
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
You mean like content (msn, msnbc), services (msIM,
Re:Before making a comment, read this... (Score:2)
For any other company this would be called dumping and declared illegal but if you own the attorney general then it's OK.
BTW. whether or not
MS Business Strategy different to old IBM (Score:2)
So on Microsoft's part, this displays either a different plan or (more likely) a lack of vision. Having made easy money from the Windows/Office monopoly, they don't understand how to run a "normal" business where you have to sell goods or services (where the cost of sale is not insignificant compared to the price tag).
As for IBM, while Global Services is a managed service offering which also performs implementations, PwC Consulting will be mostly implementation based. Their plan will be to use the PwC arm to feed ongoing business into GS (which means that when they report the accounts of the two arms separately IBMGS will show impressive growth).
Dunstan
Re:MS Business Strategy different to old IBM (Score:2)
Re:MS Business Strategy different to old IBM (Score:2)
MS is a target for terrorists. This is certainly plausable. A dirty bomb exploded in redmond would crush MS in a big way and you'd need 40 billion to rebuild.
MS will be split up.
The US economy is on the brink of a collapse.
The world economy is on the brink of a collapse.
MS plans on folding shop in the US and moving to another country (perhaps Bill gates will buy haiti, cuba, philipines or something). It will need that cash when the US economy crashes as a result.
I am sure you can come up with other scenarios but these I see as most likely.
Bear in mind I am not saying that I think these things are imminent just that Bill Gates thinks they are imminent and that's why he is hoarding cash.
MS branching out (Score:2)
You obviously didn't notice that Microsoft now sells a CRM suite [microsoft.com] and a reasonably well thought of Content Management System [microsoft.com].
Now the CRM suite is no match for Siebel [siebel.com], as it's targeted at SMEs, but the CMS is in the tier just below Vignette and Documentum, and has inflicted major price movements in the CMS market.
Oh, btw, spot on with the rest of your comment.
Oracle (Score:1, Insightful)
Just a thought,
Aj
Before Andersen Jokes Spread.. (Score:5, Informative)
Accenture [accenture.com] was originally part of the Arthur Andersen LLC [andersen.com] conglomerate, as Andersen Consulting. Notice the consulting, not accounting. In January 2001 they renamed themselves to Accenture and began public trade.
That all doesn't mean that it's off the hook [bbc.co.uk], however.
And for people with slightly longer memories... (Score:2)
So it is actually founded on exactly the mentality that led to Enron et al.
All based out of a tax haven.... (Score:2)
IBM consulting and Linux... (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft spokesman Mr. Longhorn said "that open-source *had* to have contributed to the shortcomings of their accounting scheme. With Microsoft software, since we do not show the source, corporations can better hide their iillegal deads."
RMS responds, "Accouting through obscurity does not work."
In other news...
my offer (Score:1)
they didn't seem to want to go for my offer of $5.37, maybe after next weeks allowance...
next merges.... (Score:2, Funny)
Apple buy IKEA
Oracle buy Chanel
Microsoft buy playschool
Boeing buy John Deer
Re:next merges.... (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of the six or so PWC-run projects I've been involved with at various places of work, every single one has been:
a) a massive failure
b) over budget
c) not at all what the customer wanted in the first place
d) way over on scheduled time
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. get the CIO well-fed and well-laid, and if possible the CFO and the CEO or COO (whomever has responsibility for the CIO and CFO)
2. now that the contract is yours, hire a bunch of people off the street - they should have good college degrees and no practical experience. These monkeys must be able to speak and write effectively, and must have no ability to think critically at all. They are just there for documentation
3. get the monkeys to ask the client's IT guys what problems they are facing, and how they would solve them if they didn't have to do what upper management told them to do
4. without doing any fact checking, error checking or even prima facie review (these are critical to the program - not doing them, that is), edit the interviews into a single document. It doesn't matter if the document is not internally consistent (and it won't be, coming from many sources), as long as it's what the CIO has already heard from his people (and it will be, because it came from his people to the consultants). This validates the CIO's excellent hiring and promotion strategies, six-sigma ho-shin plans and whatever.
5. after making sure that step 4 takes as long as the client will tolerate, charge $200 per consultant per hour
6. brag in ads and so forth about how you helped a $6bn/yr company fix all its IT problems, but you can't say who they are because it would violate the non-disclosure you insisted on in step 1
Basically, the big 6 (or 4 or whatever they are today) are worthless piles of crap. On the other hand, independent consultants and IT services companies tend to be pretty good. IBM was odd in that they charged $400 per hour for good people, but they could actually get good people (who they paid $70 per hour at most). Maybe they ran out of good people to get, and decided to hire the monkeys.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. I've seen the same pattern myself (and I even worked for a time at a company that pulled that kind of scam).
The only thing I'd add is that most of these companies have pet technologies that must solve every problem. At one company I worked for this resulted in half a dozen aging Novell servers that worked perfectly well being replaced with about two dozen massive NT4 servers that were horribly unstable. Our wonderful NDS tree that was a pleasure to administer was replaced by unmanagable 'domains' with complex trust relationships that nobody understood.
At the consulting company I was working for, Tivoli was the 'one true solution' for everything (you can guess the company). Clients were conned into buying Tivoli agents for everything. It's amazing how expensive these agents can get. Then of course you need more of their expensive consultants to configure the resulting mess.
What I've learned is that consultants have their place, but you have to keep them under a tight reign. Give them specific, well scoped projects with well-defined deliverables. Do use them for specific skills that you don't have in-house, or extra manpower when you don't have enough staff for a specific project. Never let them define the goals, scope, or technology to be used.
the reign in speign falls meignly on the pleign (Score:2, Informative)
"...you have to keep them under a tight reign."
rein. under tight rein. like reindeer. they're reined together, see? or like horses. that's where the saying comes from. if you give a horse free rein, it will just do as it pleases. to control it, you have to keep it under tight rein.
pedant (Score:2, Funny)
pedant n: a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit (WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)
Dangerous Company (Score:2)
Re:Ha! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm quite fed up with this bad attitude against the big consulting corporations. I've worked with some small consulting companies, and many times I have seen just a bunch of code monkeys, unable many times to compromise with the client or take the responsibility for the project when it is needed.
IMHO again, the reason why many times the big companies go for the services of the big consulting firms, is just because they know they are not able to accomplish their objectives by themselves.
And finally, the big consulting and the small and freelance consulting worlds are not very far away. I know people who has crossed borders in both ways.
The big consultancies deserve it!!! (Score:2)
I have worked with major consultancy firms. Their work is substandard and they attempt to bully their way past any independents or local technical management with incompetent ideas that are poorly implemented.
What they give to senior management is schmooze, payoffs (come visit our corporate HQ in the Bahamas) and the ability for the board to escape the blame when defending their poor results to shareholders.
I have seen the large consultancy companies take 200 people to do the work of 20 competent staff. This is why I dislike the biggies so much.
Bar talk... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Look at there business and come up with the most complicated solution, and describe it in the most vague and unintelligible way you can. Make sure to use lots of big technical words,especially trendy ones, feel free to make up entirely new terminology to desribe everyday things. For instance a gateway is now a "Inter/Intra network liason device", and a router is now a "packet traffic management switching and delegation processing unit." Do not spell out clearly how to implement your plan. If the business does well, take all the credit. If not, claim they did not implement your plan correctly, and that it is their own fault for leaving out the most "critical" piece of your solution."
That was from a guy I knew in Philly who made 7 figures a year, and that he employed the strategy on all consultant gigs from management, to manufacturing and IT.
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it? HS
Re:Bar talk... (Score:2)
Re:Bar talk... (Score:2)
So, the lesson here is: To make it big and rich in IT, sell your soul to the Devil, and cheat your way to the top.
Awesome. This honest, stable, and average-paying programming job was getting stale, anyway. Now, where'd I put that back-stabbin' knife...
(just kidding; honest and stable is pretty darn good)
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
Meanwhile, all the young turk managers are leaping off the project like the sumbitch was on fire. The project heads are going around trying to find resources for the project and getting nowhere
"Hey, can you help out with the Billing System?"
"No, can't do it. Health problems. I have a bone in my leg".
In the end, the project heads are standing around with this flaming shitbag of a project with layoffs headed their way.
It was fun to watch.
IBM has always been a "Solutions" company (Score:3, Interesting)
PWC covering their future asses? (Score:2)
Perhaps they've got some misdeeds that may come to light, and are trying to prevent anything that might be discovered from precipitating an Anderson-esque collapse?
Well, in any event, to an ignoramus like me, it sounds win-win.
Re:PWC covering their future asses? (Score:2)
Then they were supposed to spin off the group on it's own and rename to Monday. Just like Anderson did with Accenture [slashdot.org].
Tree Saver (Score:4, Funny)
HP Mulls $18 Billion Bid For PWC Consulting (Score:2, Informative)
Re:HP Mulls $18 Billion Bid For PWC Consulting (Score:2)
Obviously they've lost themselves a few customers. Ironically, the customers probably went out of business because they spent all their money on consultants.
Quite a steal... (Score:1)
17 to 18 billion HP wanted to pay 2 years ago.
IBM probably got a good deal (Score:4, Informative)
So PWC had to sell off their consulting unit to somebody, or spin it off as a standalone entity. IBM makes sense as a buyer, since they already do IT consulting and related services. IBM probably got a good price, since this was a forced sale.
No big thing; it actually makes sense as a deal.
What do you get if you cross IBM and PWC? (Score:5, Funny)
A: IBM
(Yes, it's not funny; it wasn't funny when they bought the company I worked for, either...)
-- Terry
Re:What do you get if you cross IBM and PWC? (Score:2)
Re:What do you get if you cross IBM and PWC? (Score:2)
Re:What do you get if you cross IBM and PWC? (Score:3, Funny)
Poor HP (Score:2, Interesting)
Carly must be dieing right now.
Re:Poor HP (Score:2)
More possible mergers... (Score:5, Funny)
Hale Business Systems, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Fuller Brush, and W.R. Grace Company merge to become Hale Mary Fuller Grace.
Polygram Records, Warner Brothers, and Keebler Crackers merge to become Polly-Warner-Cracker.
3M and Goodyear merge to become MMMGood.
John Deere and Abitibi-Price merge to become Deere Abi.
Zippo Manufacturing, Audi Motors, Dofasco, and Dakota Mining merge to become Zip Audi Do Da.
Honeywell, Imasco, and Home Oil merge to become Honey I'm Home.
Denison Mines, and Alliance and Metal Mining merge to become Mine All Mine.
Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge and begin manufacturing reproductive organs.
Fairchild Electronics and Honeywell Computers will merge and become Fairwell Honeychild.
3M, J.C. Penney and the Canadian Opera Company will merge and become 3 Penney Opera.
Knott's Berry Farm & National Organization of Women will merge and become Knott NOW!
Re:More possible mergers... (Score:3, Funny)
Dolly Parton is buying up three grocery store chains: Big Star, Piggly Wiggly, and Harris Teeter. The new conglomerate will be called Big Wiggly Teeters.
Ohh no (Score:2)
Re:Ohh no (Score:2)
At the end of the day, (Score:2, Interesting)
Their answer to this is that their employees are able to draw on a vast and global pool of knowledge.
I think that's bollocks.
ex-PwC employee email (Score:2)
But we have to count paper clips !!!! (Score:2)
God was smoking rat poison on this one.
As a former PW person, this makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen some postings about idiots, wasted money, and pet technologies being implemented by these firms. I worked with some of the smartest people I've ever met while I was at PW. I also watched some big dopes try to make things work.
Some folks did squander client's money. Other clients demanded that we build something that pleased the CIO of their company, even if they were told that it would never solve the problem that they wanted it to solve.
I did participate in some great projects - projects that helped companies and government agencies solve some really big problems.
PW's strength (from my perspective) was that they could bring smart people to the table who could figure out how to solve problems while not being held back by company politics or excessive meetings.
Now, as a member of a large corporation, I see that there are many projects that we are simply unable to tackle because we don't have enough team players, or enough aggressive and smart players to move the ball. That's when we call the big folks like IBM and Accenture.....
I guess my pension $$ are now a part of IBM's program.
The summary is wrong. (Score:2)
They get a deal (Score:2)
Remember when... (Score:2)
HP wanted to buy it for 17-18 Billion.
IBM will now be buying it for 1/5 of that.
Here [infoworld.com] is the link if no one remembers.
What a mistake that would have been!