Related Posts

Survey: CFOs Don’t Think You Should Start Your Career at a Big 4 Firm

Accountemps released the results of a survey today that shows many Chief Financial Officers think that the best place for accounting graduates to start their careers is in a “small to midsize company.” The surprising thing about this particular survey is that the numbers aren’t even close.

When CFOs were asked, “In which one of the following employment environments would you recommend today’s accounting graduates begin their careers?” Their responses were:

Small to midsize company 56%
Small to midsize public accounting firm 16%
Large corporation 14%
Large public accounting firm 8%
Other/don’t know 6%


“Small to midsize public accounting firm” dropped 14% from 2005.

Oh right. And “large public accounting firm” came in dead last. So, for the CFOs surveyed, they’re not really hot on public accounting like they were five years ago and they’re really not crazy about the Big 4 and next tier firms.

Accountemps Chairman Max Messmer says, “At smaller companies, employees often must wear many hats because workloads are spread between fewer workers. Having a wider range of duties enables new hires to quickly build skills, gain exposure to diverse areas of the business and assume strategic roles earlier in their careers.”

From a personal standpoint, we’ve seen both the small and the freakishly large so we’ll try to provide some perspective here.

Maximilian’s thoughts are accurate as it relates to smaller companies. They do have more of a sink or you’re out on your ass approach that will help you grow up quick in that company. Additionally, small businesses have the tendency to be a little more flexible when it comes to your work/life balance. There aren’t any fancy initiatives or bombardments of emails; it’s more of the behavior of those around you. In small companies, you see people taking vacation for days and weeks at at time. That should encourage you to do the same.

At large companies, you hear about people that are losing their accrued vacation, mostly because they are lunatics, but also because it’s likely a widespread occurrence at the company. People in large firms have the asinine notion that somehow the wheels would fall off if they were to disappear for two days, forget about a week. This sounds ridiculous but it’s true.

However, large firms and companies do have resources and opportunities that smaller shops simply cannot provide. Want to move to San Francisco? Your large firm has an office there. Think you might want to spend two years in Australia? Your large company can make that happen. Small shops? Not so much.

What the press release doesn’t say is why the CFOs think you should start at a small/midsize company. Max’s opinion is fine but did he conduct all 1,400 of those phone interviews himself? Of course not. The survey was “a random sample of [CFOs at] U.S. companies with 20 or more employees.” Chances are, most of those CFOs have never worked at a big company so their perspective is likely skewed.

The other thing is – trying not to overstate this – you’ve got to make up your own damn mind about what you want to do with yourself. Do you want Big 4 experience? Then go for it. Do you want a flexible schedule that doesn’t involve a multi-level bureaucracy? Then a small company is probably more your speed.

No survey can answer those questions for you.

THINK SMALL: CFOs Recommend Accounting Grads Start Their Careers at Smaller Companies [Accountemps PR]

REMEC Court Decision Could Expose Companies to More Accounting Fraud Litigation

This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.

As if it wasn’t a big enough risk already, CFOs may have to brace themselves for more private litigation over accounting fraud if a court decision on April 21 involving failed telecom equipment maker REMEC serves as precedent. The good news is that plaintiffs will have to show evidence of the executives’ intent in such cases.


Most cases involving accounting are either dismissed because they involve judgment or are settled before they go to trial, Robert Brownlie, a partner in the law firm of DLA Piper who represented the defendants in the REMEC case, told CFOZone last Thursday. The Del Mar, Calif., company filed for bankruptcy in 2005.

One of the largest such cases involved former Lucent executives, whom shareholders charged had defrauded them through improper accounting for goodwill. In that case, shareholders agreed in 2003 to accept a $600 million settlement.

In contrast to the Lucent case, the one filed by shareholders against REMEC’s former CEO, Ronald Ragland, and former CFO, Winston Hickman, was dismissed, though it also rested on charges that they misled investors because they didn’t write off goodwill that was impaired.

But the dismissal was more difficult to achieve than it would otherwise have been, said Brownlie, because the plaintiffs submitted evidence of internal reports and testimony showing that the company was behind schedule on certain objectives and not meeting its internal forecasts. The court said that those reports created a factual issue that should be determined by a jury; the defendants had to show there was no evidence of intent to deceive on the part of management.

“Normally, with matters of opinion or judgment, you either can’t bring a suit or it’s very difficult to do so,” Brownlie said. But he warned that the decision could mean more cases against corporate executives over accounting fraud.

The court dismissed the charges even though the plaintiffs’ accounting experts testified that they would have reached different conclusions than the former executives did.

Brownlie added that his case was helped by evidence of good faith conduct by the defendants, including evidence of transparency between the company and its auditors, disclosures of disappointing results and write-offs of other accounting items during the period of the alleged fraud and the absence of stock sales.

Describing the outcome for CFOs as “both good and bad news,” Brownlie said the decision showed that the critical issue in such cases will be “a connection between claims and evidence.” And he cautioned that in other accounting cases, it’s likely to be harder to defend executives on the basis of intent, which is why he said “there’s a paradox” in the REMEC decision.