Arthur Andersen wasn't Enron's victim — the 2-for-1 consulting quota built the conflict of interest decades before Enron existed
Most retellings treat Arthur Andersen as a firm destroyed by a bad client. I've been digging into the internal structure and I think that gets the causality backwards.
In the 1970s, Andersen leadership introduced a quota system that required every audit partner to sell roughly twice their audit fee in consulting services to the same clients they were independently auditing. Charge a client $10,000 for an audit, and you were expected to sell them $20,000 in consulting.
Think about the actual mechanics of that. The person hired to be your independent check was financially incentivized to never make the client unhappy — because an unhappy client kills the consulting revenue that was now the bigger number on the partner's book. If an auditor found a real problem, flagging it risked the far more profitable relationship sitting on top of it.
By the time Enron came along, that structure had already been running for two decades across other clients — Waste Management, Sunbeam, DeLorean's GPD shell company. Andersen's own junior auditors reportedly caught issues and wrote them up. Senior partners overruled them, in at least one case explicitly because the client was paying millions in non-audit fees.
Enron didn't corrupt Andersen. Enron just found a firm that had already spent 20+ years training itself not to say no to a paying client.
Curious whether people who've actually worked in a multi-service firm see the same structural bind today, or whether post-Sarbanes-Oxley separation rules genuinely fixed this. Is the audit/consulting firewall real in practice, or is it more of a compliance fiction?