They're not in the big four but they are quite large and well respected, at least they were until they - and BDO, another large accounting firm - were flagged as insufficient in terms of oversight by the UK regulators.
I don't know much about European accounting firms. But the rest of your comment seems to contradict your initial claim -- i.e. they are not Big Four and they have had a recent scandal.
They are in the top 10 in my country and in many others, and they have been cautioned, which is regulator speech for 'improve your act or we'll go after you'. That means that they are on thin ice with respect to any future mistakes (specifically in their crypto division) and that their reputation (for the whole company) is at risk. The effect is that they will go through their customer portfolio and decide which ones they feel are negatively affecting their risk profile and apparently this is one risk that they are not willing to take.
If this was a canary in the coalmine it just started wheezing strangely and it looks a little dizzy.
If it sounded reassuring to you then I should work on my writing skills, it certainly wasn't meant that way.
> sounds like a reason to leave the mine.
Absolutely, if you have funds in this - and any other unaudited - exchange GTFO or you may lose everything. Either their claim that they have the funds is real and you get your money and later you can re-deposit it or you'll be at least not one of the ones left holding the bag.
I read it as a mid-tier accounting firm selling their seal of approval to raise income on sketchy accounts. That's not really news (or effective) unless the accounting firm has some respectability (like Aurthur Anderson ;^).
I've been in the financial services world since 2007 and have come across Mazars about as often as I've seen work from the big 4, they're simply a bit lower on the totem pole image wise but their non-crypto departments deliver pretty solid work.
The big differentiators are the price point and their ability to create an army of consultants on a moments notice where required. The big four clearly have an edge in those cases - at a price.
If Mazars is heading out the door you should try to beat them to the curb.
> the rest of your comment seems to contradict your initial claim -- i.e. they are not Big Four and they have had a recent scandal.
It doesn't contradict it IMO:
1) In terms of the criticism from the FRC (which I believe is the 'scandal' you are talking about) KPMG were also criticised by the FRC so also would fall foul of this.
2) Just because a company isn't one of the 'big four' doesn't mean that they are lower tier.
Mazars and BDO are large yes, but they're not well respected. Over the past decade, both have had the ignominious distinction of having the worst PCAOB review scores of the top 100 accounting firms. It appears that their auditing practices in the U.K. aren't any better. (And both Mazars and BDO provided tax and auditing services to the Zuma and Ramaphosa administrations in South Africa, though this is because BDO's former S.A. member firm became Mazar's S.A. member firm.)
A large part of my early career in tax was fixing the mistakes made by tax advisors at these two firms.
Those who know, avoid BDO. (And Mazars too. They're actually worse.)
Is there a resource to look up such things for future reference? Furthermore, are any open-source projects familiar with any of these top 100 accounting firms?
They are big, but definitely lower tier. They aren’t even in the top 10 globally, so literally lower tier.
For example, the smallest of the big4 had $32B just in its audit and accounting section. Mazars had $2B in its entire organization, including advisory.
They are by definition lower-tier, as they don't have the resources to run an audit for a firm that purportedly maintains billions in reserves. A contract of that size wouldn't end up at a regional arm in South Africa anyway.
Big 4 auditors aren't exactly cheap, but there is a reason why they audit all the major firms. Mazar's biggest customer appears to be the Trump Organization.
> as they don't have the resources to run an audit for a firm that purportedly maintains billions in reserves
I don't think the resources are the real problem.
The real problem is that Mazars has already been cautioned and they know full well that if Binance goes under their reputation is toast if they keep underwriting them.
Auditing a firm is not an act of charity. It’s a contract. Binance has either asked zero accountants to audit their billions in reserves, or zero have taken the job. Mazars international probably got scared and leaned on the partner. The auditing of a firm this size is usually not a very big deal and nowhere near the capacity of a partner with all the roles below.
They're not in the big four but they are quite large and well respected, at least they were until they - and BDO, another large accounting firm - were flagged as insufficient in terms of oversight by the UK regulators.
See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-20/mazars-bd...
So they're on thin ice and they will not risk going down with this particular ship.