Because I wasted 50 seconds of my life watching this, I think you should too.
Related article:
Because I wasted 50 seconds of my life watching this, I think you should too.
Related article:
To the Klynveldians, it was a pretty decent pay day just to state the obvious: that the city of Toronto could save a few bucks (make that a few loonies) by not putting fluoride in its water supply and a few other cost-saving measures. We find KPMG’s tagline of “cutting through complexity” to be extra appropriately hilarious in this particular context and there is no mention in the report of potential cost savings that could be realized were Toronto never to pay for Big 4 consulting services ever again.
Krupo has the entire story over at A Counting School but here’s the short version for those of you with legitimate ADHD problems: eliminating or reducing some non-core services provided by the Public Works and Infrastructure department could save the city $10 – 15 million (CAD).
KPMG states that ending the forced medication of Toronto’s public water supply by cutting the fluoride could have detrimental effects on the dental well-being of Torontonians, though obviously they haven’t been reading up on their tin foil hat, anti-fluoride research, which clearly shows a higher incidence of tooth decay in areas which use the fertilizer-production byproduct (which is considered toxic waste as long as it isn’t dumped in the water supply). Cut it! (If you think I’m insane, check out this “chemical spill” that burned through the concrete in Illinois. Those guys in Hazmat suits? Cleaning up Hydrofluorosilicic acid, the toxic industry slurry that becomes fluoride)
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. KPMG also advises Toronto that holding itself to a lower level standard could help save some cash. “Over half of the services that report through the Public Works Committee are provided ‘at standard’, which is generally the level required by provincial legislation or the level generally provided by other municipalities,” says the report. “30% of services are provided at slightly above standard offering some opportunities for cost reduction by lowering the service level provided. 17% of services are delivered slightly below or below standard.”
One such “higher standard” service to which KPMG refers in this report is the Toxic Taxi (no, that’s not what you call a bar crawl through Denver with Caleb after yoga and two red bean burritos), a free service that picks up your hazardous household waste like expired medications and batteries if you cannot drop them off at an authorized location yourself. We wonder how much went in to make the high quality “advertisement” of bootleg Canadian Mexicans Chuck and Vince trying to get you to turn in your used paint and batteries.
As Torontoist so astutely pointed out, the report didn’t actually look at how the horribly mismanaged Toronto city government could run more efficiently but instead simply analyzed which services could be cut. “KPMG did not assess the effectiveness or efficiency of City services,” the report states. “Assessment of how services are delivered is envisioned to be conducted through separate efficiency reviews. KPMG did not conduct financial analyses of programs and services to identify potential savings.”
I guess efficiency suggestions are extra.
Announced Monday, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has fined the King’s KPMG £2,250,000 ($2.9 million […]
We’re still waiting to hear what the Next Level is but this should tide you over in the meantime.
I’m a second-year audit senior associate at KPMG in the New York Office. This past Wednesday there was a round-table discussion with about a dozen seniors to discuss compensation. I’ve been looking on Going Concern to see what has turned up, and since I’ve yet to see anything i figured I would send along what was discussed…
The meeting was run be a couple of our heads of compensation, and they were certain to tell us that in no way has this been approved by leadership, but as long as feedback from the round-table sessions is positive, they think it has a good chance of happening. They asked us about how the above and beyond award [Ed. note: aka utilization bonuses] was received, to which everyone responded negatively, and they unveiled their plan for future bonus compensation to reward loyalty for the firm. They said that this plan would be in addition to any raises and variable comp that the firm already has, so this would act as a reward for loyalty to the firm. I will highlight the details below.
-This plan is applicable for senior associates
– In December everyone makes an election that they classified as immediate, one-year, and two-year. The immediate pays $1,000, the 1-year pays $4,000, and the 2-year pays $8,000. This election would be made each December by senior associates. One example they gave of a first-year senior associate entering this bonus program was as follows:December 2011: two-year election – pays $8,000 in May 2014
December 2012: two-year election – pays $8,000 in May 2015
December 2013: one-year election – pays $4,000 in May 2016They were selling us on the fact that you would be paid out $20,000 in the span of twelve months, which of course sounds pretty great. One thing to keep in mind is that the terminology “immediate”, “one-year”, and “two-year” isn’t completely accurate. In reality it is more like one, two, or three busy seasons. Some of the particulars are that once you make an election you’re stuck with it, so if you take the immediate payout and happen to stay another few years, you are less loyal than someone who knew ahead of time. Also, if you leave the firm before you reach your payment date you obviously get nothing.
The plan was generally well received in the meeting, but didn’t get good reviews at all when I told some of my co-workers about it. I am curious to see how others feel about it. We all seemed to agree that it didn’t seem worth it to take the $1,000 payout because after taxes you’d barely notice it, and that it would take real guts to take the $8,000 payout, because as a first-year senior associate the length of your deferral is longer than your employment at the firm to date, so you never really know if you’ll still be there to collect.
Say what you will about the KPMG, they are trying to get creative with the bonus structure. Whether or not it takes with Klynveldians is another matter entirely but you can get started by commenting with your reactions below.
