Category: Big 4

If it happens at a Big 4 accounting firm, we’re talking about it here.

Future Big 4 Associate Needs Help Choosing Between Commuting Hell and a Happy Marriage

Ed. Note: DWB was sober long enough today to pen this post for the Friday edition of Accounting Career Couch. If you’ve got a question for us email us at advice@goingconcern.com. We’ll dispense with further pleasantries and get right to it.

I just received three offers from two Big 4 firms in San Francisco (Deloitte and KPMG) for audit and one Big 4 firm for advisory internal audit in San Jose. I really like the idea of going into advisory but the problem is that I live in San Francisco and the advisory clients for this firm are all located around San Jose and the Silicon Valley. This would likely mean at least a one hour and 15 minute commute every day each way from SF to SJ and back againlients I would likely be working on from SF are all located within 20 minutes of my apartment in the city. Moving to San Jose is out of the question for me because my wife works in SF and I’m not ready for a divorce just yet. My question to you and Going Concern readers is should I take the advisory job despite the crazy commute or should I take one of the audit positions?

I’d still be very happy taking one of the audit positions but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the more consistent working hours of advisory internal audit didn’t appeal to me much more than audit (no insane busy season in advisory). Much of this benefit would be negated by my much longer commute though. Also, if I choose advisory I would be likely getting reimbursed $0 for my commute since the job is based out of the SJ office and I am based in SF. Although $0.50 a mile doesn’t sound like a lot, it really does add up to several thousand dollars in missed reimbursement expenses for such a long commute (assuming 80 miles a day in reimbursable driving). Also, the advisory position pay is slightly less to begin with (approximately $1,500 less) than my audit offers. Other considerations that I am thinking about are that many people from the Deloitte office (mostly associates) have said that the Deloitte SF office is understaffed. To me this means more opportunity for advancement but also more hours of work. Also, I feel that if I started in audit I could do two years of audit and if I didn’t like it then could jump ship to advisory in SF rather than having to start at advisory in SJ and beg to get a transfer to the SF advisory practice in a year or two. So what should I do? Should the lengthy and costly commute for advisory versus audit be a deal breaker? Will I struggle to break into advisory after two years in audit if I decide to make the switch?

Hopefully I’ve given enough info about my choices so that DWBraddock will stop complaining about us not saying enough in our requests for advice.

Kudos to you and your detailed email. Peons of the accounting world – take note [Ed. note: but there is something to be said for brevity. Yeesh.].

First off, my advice is from the “this is usually how it works” camp. Are there exceptions? Of course, and I’m sure that commenters will point them out.

Are you sure you will be reimbursed for every single mile that you travel? The HR policy is typically the net difference between your home to the office and your home to the client site. For example if you live 50 miles from the office and the client site is 53 miles from your home, you are reimbursed for the three mile difference. I strongly encourage you to consult HR before you go re-adjusting the all-in value of the advisory offer with thousands of dollars of mileage.

Now that I crushed your dream of banking $1,000’s, let’s discuss the audit vs. internal audit battle. You make a lot of assumptions in your email, but I think these bullets cover everything you discussed:

• Internal audit should not be looked at as a green-lighted pass to jump around the advisory practice. Many advisory roles are target recruited and are very specialized from a work capacity point of view. The name “advisory” doesn’t mean the roles are similar; it’s simply a nicer way of saying “everything that’s not audit and tax.”

• You will not be fast-tracked at Deloitte just because they’re short staffed. You will work your ass off.

• It’s easier to go from internal audit to external audit, not the other way around (the way you mentioned).

• Don’t think a transfer is a simple process. There has to be a need in the office you want to transfer to, and considering you’re contemplating and office and practice switch-a-roo in one swift motion…really? This is not a game – this is business and not everyone gets what they want.

• PS – I forwarded this to your wife. She said you’re sleeping on the couch for the next week.

Grant Thornton Employees in Chicago Feeling the Heat to Join Big 4

After reporting rumors that PwC was chasing Deloitte seniors in Chicago, now comes another report out of the House of Chipman:

Is it just me or is pwc trying really hard to bring in seniors in Chicago? The other day at GT, the same pwc recruiter called every S1 in audit asking if we’d be interested in moving over.

A few of us actually answered just to see what he had to say and he was pushing real hard in getting people to accept that if we made a move, we’d have to take a step down (S1 to move over to A3), and that they’d be making a large investment in keeping us long-term (at least through a promotion to manager). This is after we lost a S2 and an A2 who both moved to pwc. Plus, we’ve received several emails from other outside recruiters gauging our interest in the Big 4, not to mention my friends at the Big 4 trying to get me to send them my resume so they can refer me (for a much larger referral bonus, I’m assume). Not sure if this is juicy enough information, but that’s pretty much what’s happening right now over at G to the T.

Here’s the deal people – all the firms need people at the Senior Associate level. All the firms have made it known that they are hiring aggressively, both experienced and entry-level employees and the recruiters within the firms have jobs too. Besides, where are they supposed to look for the appropriate talent to fill their empty positions? Dunkin’ Donuts?

Grant Thornton, believe or not, has plenty of talented people and the Big 4 will take those people if they can get them. Management probably gets tired of all the bellyaching by employees about how short-staffed they are so the pressure is on the recruiters to get asses in the seats.

If you don’t want to be hassled by Big 4 recruiters, simply say, “I’m not interested, thanks,” and go on your merry way. But judging by all the complaining at GT, lots of employees are probably happy to entertain some options.

A/P Clerk Would Like to Know How to Best Use $30k to Get a Job with a Big 4 Firm

From the mailbag:

I have been working as a Accounts Payable for 3 years. I don’t want to waste your time of explaining my disadvantages. One of my advantages is money. I have a large savings. I would like to give $30,000 to anyone who get me a job in Big 4. I am not talking about [a] bribe. I wish to know how to use advantages [sic].

Just don’t sit there, give the man some suggestions. All options are on the table. Bonus points for creativity.

An ‘Appropriate Email Use’ Refresher May Be Needed for All Big 4 Firms in Ireland

Earlier today we brought up some less-than gentlemanly behavior going on at PwC Ireland. However, that wasn’t the first story of misuse of email coming from the Emerald Isle. You may recall a few bros at KPMG asking for some assistance winning a trip to Whistler, which was received with mixed reviews in the States.

Anyway! Now comes the story – courtesy of our sister from another mister, Dealbreaker – about another KPMG associate maybe not using the best judgment, sharing his plans for putting the moves on a special lady friend with his mate over firm email.

From: Ian [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 10:24
To: John [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

Good night on wed man. Good old craic. Any luck with the ladies

Kind Regards,

Ian [redacted]

Financial Services Audit

2 Harbourmaster Place

IFSC

Dublin

____________________________________________________________________________
From: John [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 10:28
To: Ian [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

Was a very good night. Got very messy in the end. No luck with the ladies. Had my eyes on this one girl, [redacted]. Some piece of work. But bottled it in the end

_________________________________________________________________________________

From: Ian [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 10:45
To: John [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

I know the one your talking about alright. Shes friends with one of my mates in my year. Seems like a nice girl. Gonna chance it next time

_____________________________________________________________________________

From: John [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 11:24
To: Ian [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

Definiately going to stick the head in next time. Falling behind on this whole k score thing. Need to get on board. Shes top notch in fairness

What u reckon?

______________________________________________________________________________

From: Ian [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 11:40
To: John [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

Ya, sure go for it if you like her

_____________________________________________________________________________

From: John [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 11:48
To: Ian [redacted]
Subject: RE: Wed

Alright next thurs, im gonna stick the head in. Just wait for the right moment. (When shes drunk) and she cant say no. Got this unreal technique for scoring aswel, called the whisper. I pretend im whispering in her ear and when shes not looking I just kiss her. The element of surprise throws then off and BOOM.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Ian [redacted]
Sent: 22 October 2010 12:04
To: [the girl]
Subject: Wed

Hey [girl],

Thought id give u the heads up about this chap John here. Think he has some serious plans for you

__________________________________________________________________________

From: [everyone who was forwarded this]
To: [everyone they know]
Subject: read from the bottom up!!!

Higher-ups at Deloitte Aren’t Sure Why Employees Are Still in ‘Shock Mode’ From the Last Few Years

All the good times at the Deloitte – Jim Quigley on the teevee, surprise raises, leaving PwC in the dust – hasn’t gotten green-dot morale to acceptable levels.

Accordingly, some of the senior partners in the advisory practice have taken it upon themselves to remind everyone how things are turning around.

From a green-dot familiar with the situation:

There has been an up-tick in senior partner communication recently – mostly in the form of mass e-mail communications, published “Your Questions Answered” videos and in-person “Straight-Talk” sessions – seeming aimed at reassuring the masses that Deloitte’s on its way to the promised land. The message is pretty clear that we’ve survived the recession, are hiring like crazy, are bringing in new business at a solid clip and that we’re spanking our competition (i.e., need to look into the rear-view mirror to find PwC and gang).

This, of course, is in contrast to what we in the trenches feel; that our compensation isn’t mirroring our level of output, that we can’t staff engagements because we don’t have enough resources and that all of our friends are leaving for our competitors. This disparity is acknowledged by the partnership; and at least at one straight talk session, we were told that they can’t figure out why we don’t see the light. It was then proposed that we’re still in “shock mode” because of the last few years; but this observer thinks it’s more that we’re working so hard to produce results for the partners that we can’t see the light because the only free time we have is the few hours of twilight that exists each day – and that’s for sleeping (or other creative stress reducing activities ).

Btw, not sure what you’re hearing; but in my group-region alone, I know of 8 people who have left in the last month (the group-region is about 120 people).

Okay then – so it boils down to either being in “shock mode” or your terrible attitude. Share your position on the matter and what camp you fall into below.

Is Citi Getting Bad Advice from KPMG?

John Carney wonders aloud if Citigroup’s low reserves (approximately $1b reserve for $500b in exposure) for its repurchase risk is thanks to the guidance provided by KPMG. Citi has said that they are, “comfortable with this level of reserves because historically realized repurchase risk has been quite small.” Carney explains, “In short, they haven’t had to pay out much on these claims in the past, so they figure they won’t pay out much in the future.”

Be that as it may, JC and his colleague, Ash Bennington are pret-tay sure Citi has it wrong (they lay out their case in full) and speculates that KPMG is, at the very least, an enabler here.


Carney points out that Francine McKenna has been following KPMG’s not so stellar guidance on this particular issue for years. Starting with New Century in 2007, Wells Fargo last year and Countrywide who was purchased by Bank of America.

Carney then writes that Bank of America is “widely assumed to have the largest repurchase risk, largely thanks to the acquisition of Countrywide.”

So that’s a helluva trail to be sure and Carney wraps up:

So is the advice of KPMG part of the reason for Citi’s complacency when it comes to repurchase risk? Given the history of companies audited by KPMG missing repurchase risk, perhaps Citi should rethink that complacency.

Of course Carney forgets that Dick Bové would take exception with everything he’s saying, since this firm is perfectly acceptable. Even if he doesn’t know who they are.

We’d like to get anyone familiar with the matter (read: Citi audit team members) on the record, so get in touch and we’ll put it out there. Or you can chime in below.