Talk:BearingPoint/Archives/2012

IPO Investment comment
The comment related to the investment of IPO dollars back into the company does not tell the truth. When BearingPoint split from KPMG, the company was required to pay KPMG a substantial sum in order to allow the employees to withdraw from the KPMG pension plan at the time they retire. Most of the remaining funds were used to purchase th eold KPMG Consulting partnerships around the world with the exception of Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.221.168 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?
I did not want to unilaterally remove this comment, but after much thought I went ahead and did "and is also a sponsor of PGA TOUR golf professional Phil Mickelson" was marked with 'reference needed'. Let's say this is a 100% true statement with tons of evidenciary support. Does it matter? More importantly, would this statement be of such relevance to BearingPoint that it needs to be in the introductory paragraph? Albertod4 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) - Highly relevant, since that has been the sole marketing for several years, and the only way many people recognize the name. If anyone searches for "BearingPoint" expecting to find golf equipment and finds this article, this will connect the dots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.90.28 (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the stock 3 cents???
This price, the delisting by the NYSE, the overall financials, the reverse split, is a major development.

Anyone know what's going on?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.149.42 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?
Looking in the edit history, there seems to be an edit war. I'm contacting User:Diegorivera2 and User:High on a tree. Hopefully, this will be resolved without any need to escalate per the Resolving_disputes page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.86.4 (talk • contribs)

Proposed merger of BearingPoint Infonova
Infonova is described as a wholly-owned subsidiary of BearingPoint. Instead of Infonova having its own article, it would be more appropriate for it to be given a section in the main article. On its own, Infonova may not satisfy WP:CORP. Accurizer 10:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

do not think so
the articles has to be based on whether or not BearingPoint Infonova satisfies WP:CORP on its own. Under "Criteria for companies and corporations," it could not satisfy criteria 2 or 3. Under "Criteria for products and services," I don't see how it satisfies criteria 2. Therefore, in order to retain a separate article, we would need to demonstrate how it satisfies criteria 1 in either category. My attempt to do this has not been fruitful. Google News is usually helpful in determining whether criteria 1 has been met, but Google News provides only one hit for Infonova. Unless someone can provide better evidence I would think a merger would have to occur. Accurizer 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger reasonable, dropping the article not
Well ... an article for BearingPoint INFONOVA might not be appropriate however the solution portfolio - as far as I understand the current website - differs from the overall portfolio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.173.39 (talk • contribs)

Infonova instead of BearingPoint Infonova
Would it be ok to change the title of the article in INFONOVA only? As you see on the websites, BearingPoint is an typical consulting company. Infonova however is providing products and integration services - something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.81.38 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think moving the article to "Infonova" would be appropriate, given that the company's website uses the name "BearingPoint Infonova." However, I don't think there would be anything wrong with creating an "Infonova" redirect page that points to the "BearingPoint Infonova" article, and I have done so. Accurizer 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Content Removed: Inaccurate or Scrubbed?
Some negative content has been removed from the article and replaced with positive information. The editor, User_talk:Mark bowerman cites the reason for the edit as:

refreshed copy of company description and capabilities to reflect current position in the consulting services market and a correction of an inaccuracy

However, no note of what the inaccuracy is has been placed in this discussion. It seems like the edit is a violation of NPOV, but I want to get a sense of what other editors think of this before this gets escalated, per Wikipedia policy. This page has been place on the RfC page.21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and now this link has disappeared from external links: Windfalls of War - The Center For Public Integrity And the reason given was: (→External links - Removed for link to slanted article)

I need some help calling this one, because it really seems like all the negative information is being weeded out and replaced with press-release material.21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would infer from the changes to the page that you have pointed out, that this article is being systematically and regularly scrubbed by someone, or some parties, who have an interest in putting a positive spin on on the activities of BearingPoint. I think you should restore the removed information. There is nothing inaccurate or inappropriate about what was removed. Yuck. I am definitely going to put this page on my watch list to keep an eye on it. --Betamod (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View in question
I upped the ante on the NPOV, since another piece of negative information has been removed without justification. If the previous editors could submit a justification (other than negative information being "slanted",) that will keep this from being escalated up to arbitration. Right now, the article is nearly indistinguishable for a press release and efforts to remove negative facts consitute Bias in the Commercial sense. See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.237.178.229 (talk • contribs)


 * This article sounds like something from their corporate web site. Giveaway lines that reek of corporate-speak include "The solutions portfolio of BearingPoint" "a Carrier-Grade Next Generation OSS/BSS solution with a proven track record in live environments", "a fully integrated system, delivering a full range of customer management".  No, doesn't tell me anything about what they do either.


 * I'm working for an Infonova client so might be able to improve this section. Shermozle 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. BearingPoint is in severe trouble at the moment. It missed it's 10-K deadline, it had a huge employee turnover Q2-2006, severe underperformance relative to estimates, and Moody's downgraded it from B2 to B1 and flagged it for watch for future downgrades. The general opinion in the financial world is... BearingPoint will be bought back out of the public. Yet this articles paints a nirvana company!? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
Someone should add a redirect from Bearing Point to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.196.84 (talk • contribs)


 * Done, thanks for the suggestion. Accurizer 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Finance section
Updated to current financial filing information as of September, 2007. Removed initial Hawaii Telecom paragraph as it was past tense and second paragraph regarding settlement covers the issue.57.68.49.4 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections edited/moved
War Profiteering: The article/ranking sourced is of questionable neutrality and additionally, this ranking doesn't appear to have been updated since 2004, leaving the information very dated given the change of support players working for the U.S. and Coalition governments since 2004. Also, the same Iraq contract referenced for the original "WP" section was also referenced in the "economic development project" section of this article. Hence, while I would argue that there is reason to totally remove the reference to the ranking, I've instead simply edited and consolidated the info into a single section: economic development projects.

Kidnapping: For the same reason, the "Kidnapping" section/mention doesn't seem large enough to support a separate section and has been added to the same "economic development project" listing tied to the firm's work in Iraq

Economic Development: Finally, I have simply removed the references to won/lost contracts in 2003. First, the cited contracts both won and lost are very dated at this point, and at $3.4 billion in revenues, the size of the contracts referenced would not have any material impact on the firm's financial operations whether won or lost.

Second, how appropriate for the article is it to keep a running log of won/lost business for an organization? A quick look at the news section of www.BearingPoint.com, shows that the company has announced more than a dozen new contracts in 2007 alone, including $200 million contract to support global health/AIDs initiatives, a $20 million contract in Kosovo, a $20 Million contract in Costa Rica, part of a $50 Billion contract to support the GSA, etc. Dslunceford 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

War Profiteering 2: The reference to "war profiteering" denounced by nader's think tank is comforted by a 2007 article from The Nation "Who Will Get The Oil?", in reference to Iraq's oil: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070319/parenti. the full article is under http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Who_Will_Get_Oil%3F.html

So please, separate "Economic development" (which is misleading and hypocritical) and "War profiteering". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.223.170.65 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Undid recent edits...
...to Economic Development section after unidentified user removed information that contested USAID project was rebid and won in open competition. If the mention of the protest on original contract is relevant, so should the outcome, which was a full and open competition for the work.

...and to the Financial Position paragraph, which was also a change made without comment or sourcing by an unidentified user. First, comments on the Q1 2007 filing should be at the top of this section, where Q1 filing is already mentioned. Second, the addition was simply pointing out unsourced short term stock movements that followed the filing. Would question the relevance of such notation as there's no indication it's a material event (ie. trading wasn't halted, the firm didn't have to file with the SEC, etc). Dslunceford 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed dated info
BearingPoint has had difficulty obtaining long-term commitments from new clients due to concerns about the company's financial condition. A 2006 court ruling found it in technical default of certain debts. 

I removed this because it is no longer relevant. BE had a successful debt placement, and is no longer in, or anywhere close to default, technical or otherwise. As a result, there is no evidence of BE having had recent difficulty in obtaining client commitments due to financial condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.26.53 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Current operations more important than history
Since BearingPoint is still operating, its current operations should be in the focus. Therefore I would like to change the order of the directory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.11 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is standard for History sections to come first. Look at the articles of other companies. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)