{"id":21958,"date":"2024-10-26T07:57:27","date_gmt":"2024-10-26T02:27:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=21958"},"modified":"2024-10-26T07:57:27","modified_gmt":"2024-10-26T02:27:27","slug":"comparison-of-four-financial-consulting-companies-in-the-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=21958","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of Four Financial Consulting Companies in the World"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/h1>\n

KMPG, Deloitte, PWC, and BCG are the big four in the financial world. Deloitte has a market cap of more than $200 billion, followed by KPMG with a market cap of $168.12 billion. Whereas, PWC and BCG have a market cap of $129.97 billion and $17.20 billion respectively. These firms are involved in financial consulting and the following project will compare the preferences of these four companies for a random sample of 30 individuals.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Objective<\/h1>\n

To compare the four financial consulting companies \u2013 Deloitte, BCG, PWC, and KPMG with single-factor ANOVA.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Data Collection<\/h1>\n

The data for preferences for the four companies was collected through Google form<\/p>\n

The sample of 30 individuals was randomly selected with convenience sampling<\/p>\n

The data was tabulated in MS Excel.<\/p>\n

Single-factor ANOVA was used from the\u00a0Data Analysis Tool Pack of MS Excel to compare these four different companies.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

ANOVA: Single Factor<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

SUMMARY<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Groups<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

211<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

197<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.58<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

221<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

218<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.97<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

ANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.39<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

247.65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

260.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

103.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Data Analysis<\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Null Hypothesis: <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

H0<\/strong> = There is no association between the four financial consultancies<\/p>\n

Alternative Hypothesis: <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

H1<\/strong> = There is an association between the four financial consultancies<\/p>\n

The ANOVA Single factor value for between groups is 13.18 for P-value 0.16. As the P-value calculated is more than P-value tabulated i.e., 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis, which says that there is no association between the 4 financial consulting companies. Also, the F-calculated is lesser than the F-critical value of 2.70, therefore it falls within the region of acceptance and hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.<\/p>\n

Therefore, there is no statistically significant association between preferences for Deloitte, KPMG, PWC & BCG financial consultancies.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h1>\n

The single-factor ANOVA for the data on four different financial consultancies shows p-value of 0.16 which is more than the standard p-value = 0.05 at 95% significance levels, therefore we see no association between the selected four companies.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction KMPG, Deloitte, PWC, and BCG are the big four in the financial world. Deloitte has a market cap of more than $200 billion, followed by KPMG with a market cap of $168.12 billion. Whereas, PWC and BCG have a market cap of $129.97 billion and $17.20 billion respectively. These firms are involved in financial… Continue reading Comparison of Four Financial Consulting Companies in the World<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":139468,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/139468"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21958"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21958\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21959,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21958\/revisions\/21959"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}