Tag: PwC

Comp Watch ’11: Deloitte’s New Structure Is Taking Shape

A couple of weeks ago, we heard that Deloitte was considering a similar compensation structure as PwC. This would result in Senior Associates making approximately 1.5x their starting salaries in three years, managers making 2x their starting salary and so on and so forth. At the time, it didn’t strike me as surprising that Deloitte would get all monkey-see-monkey-do on its employees simply because the Green Dot is a far more conservative firm than P. Dubs. While the structure at PwC was welcome with largely positive reviews, the Deloitte version was received less warmly.

Today, we have a little bit of an update for you – with slides! – on hure is progressing. From our tipster:

I’m surprised there was no article about this yet. Tuesday we all had a compensation call which went into great detail how raises and bonuses were handled. Here are some slides you might be interested in. It appears PwC scared them and they are copying. These numbers are still not official yet as they “are working out the numbers”…


Here’s a slide from the presentation on Deloitte’s total compensation earnings multiplier that our tipster sent over:

And here’s PwC’s:

So they’re pretty darn close, with Senior Associates doing slightly better at P. Dubs but Senior Managers faring slightly better at Deloitte, thus it ends up as a wash. Granted, the Deloitte slides only present information for AERS Advisory professionals (sorry audit and tax peeps) but it would seem odd if they opted to only change the structure for one group.

Other items worth noting include the 500 promotions for this year and the 3-5% bonus that accompanies the bump.

The pictures on the following pages show merit increases based on ranking (1 to 5 scale) for Consultants, Senior Consultants and AIP – Senior Consultants.


Presumably, in the bad years some high performers may see a paltry raise of around 4% but in the good years, it will push 16%, depending on metrics listed:


And even more impressive for Seniors, with highest performers receiving a merit increase of ~20%:


What’s interesting to note here is that Deloitte claims to have awarded bonuses to 95% of “eligible professionals.” So if I understand that correctly, 5% of those people ranked 3 or higher didn’t get a bonus. It may also get you a little weak in the knees if the AIP pool is already larger than last year’s “highest ever” pool:

Lots to digest and discuss here, so let it rip.

Heresy: Dennis Nally Says Money Isn’t the Only Motivator for Recruiting Millenials at PwC

Apparently, things like “mobility” and “skill development” are important too. If you can believe that.

Having a competitive compensation base is really important. It’s [also] about how to create an environment where people want to be. This millennial generation is not just looking for a job, they’re not just looking for salary and financial benefits, they’re looking for skill development, they’re looking for mobility, they’re looking for opportunities to acquire different skills and to move quickly from one part of an organization to another. How you manage that sort of talent and how you deal with their expectations is very different from what’s been done in the past.

So I guess that means that none of the London recruits will be stuck at the Embankment Place dump. That doesn’t sound like an environment where anyone would want to be.

PwC Chairman Aims to Keep Millennials Happy [WSJ]

PwC’s New Swanky London Location Has Those Left at the Old Dump Mad with Jealousy

P. Dubs’ “More London” or “MoLo” location is reportedly quite the swinging joint but will only house half of the City’s 11,000 employees. Those left back at the frumpy office aren’t really pleased with this development and the FT reports has caused some to catch a case of “office envy”:

The aesthetic appeal [of the MoLo location] is burnished by eco-friendly credentials. PwC is also backing a nearby bistro and wine bar that will emulate Jamie Oliver by training the homeless. The firm’s staff will also be encouraged to use it. The zeitgeistiness of it all is too much for some of those stuck at PwC’s dowdier offices in Embankment Place, near Charing Cross. But relief could be at hand. [Chairman Ian] Powell revealed that the firm is in talks to redevelop the old site to give it a bit more pizzazz.

PwC staff gripped by office envy [FT]

Freaked Out Recruit Needs Fashion Tips for PwC Leaderhip Program

Ed. note: Have a question for the career advice brain trust? Email us at advice@goingconcern.com.

Subject: Career Emergency

Well, not really. I’m just freaking out.

I have an office visit with PwC tomorrow. I’m doing a leadership program with them in two weeks. From what I’ve read online, office visits consist of interviews; however, the recruiter said dress for tomorrow is “business casual.” Can I really show up to an interview in khakis? I’m worried as small as wearing the wrong thing could ruin a potential internship offer. Gotta love the superficiality of public accounting. So do I rock a suit despite the recruiter saying busineisk underdressing for an interview?

Thanks in advance,
Freaked out junior

Dear Freaked Out,

No reason to panic, that’s what GC is here for. Since Caleb’s work attire is best suited for the pool these days (aka his “working office”) he asked that I respond to your message.

First off, congratulations on earning a spot in PwC’s two week leadership program. You are correct that there will be interviews at one point during the program, but you should also be viewing the entire two weeks as an interview. You will be evaluated throughout the period – how you interact with your peers; how you involve yourself in the group discussions; how you interview during the formal interview portion. The PwC recruiters will not only be making their own observations but they will also be soliciting feedback from the younger staff professionals who volunteer throughout the weeks. Be cognizant of the fact that every PwC professional you speak to could influence whether or not you receive an offer for the following summer.

Now – back to fashion. Unless you heard specifically from someone at the firm that interviews will be on the first day, you needn’t worry about suiting up tomorrow. They (the recruiters) want you to succeed, so they will tell you in advance about when the interviews will be. That said, it is always wise to make a positive impression on the first day. Below are a few tips on making sure you’re on spot for the first day:

Business casual: There is business casual and then there is public accounting business casual. The latter involves a wrinkled blue Oxford dress shirt and a pair of semi-pressed khakis. Sure, this counts as business casual, but…why? Do yourself a favor and avoid mimicking the Best Buy uniform on your first day.

My advice: If the recruiter said no suit, then don’t wear one (step 1 to receiving an offer is following directions). But it’s possible to have your business casual lean towards business professional without crossing the line. Go with either A) a suit (matching jacket and pants) or B) blue blazer with either grey or olive dress pants or khakis and then match with a pressed button down shirt. Avoid the plain white shirt if you can, as these are best paired with ties and you’re leaving yours at home for the day. The shirt you wear should work well with and without the jacket. These outfit options give you the ability to quickly “dress down” by leaving the jacket on the back of your chair during informal ice breakers but also allow you to quickly formalize yourself on the off-chance you’re meeting with a partner.

Additional tidbits:

• Brown/black – brown shoes and belts generally match with khaki better than black, but wear what you have and what you like. Also, make sure your shoes are polished.
• Suit/blazer jackets – double check to make sure the pockets and vents are open. Any string keeping a pocket closed is left over from production and is meant to be removed; it will come out rather easily. Also, remove the suit’s brand name tag from the sleeve if you haven’t already – only you should know your suit is Hugo Boss or JoS. A. Bank.
• Check the weather – if there’s a probability for rain, bring an umbrella. Don’t chance getting stuck in a summer storm.
• White socks: Just…don’t.

Any other advice from the peanut gallery? Share them in the comments.

Comp Watch ’11: Rumors of Deloitte Adopting New Raise Structure à la PwC

This just in:

I’m hearing rumblings that Deloitte might be the next in line to adopt a PwC-esque transparent raise structure. I don’t have the exact information, but I’ve heard something about making 1.5x your current salary in 3 years.

As you may remember, PwC announced “exciting changes” to their compensation structure back in May that involved three major parts: 1) Transparency 2) Earning Potential and 3) Milestone Awards. The multiple of 1.5x increase in three years is included in the roughly what PwC laid out in their “Total Rewards” document.

This seems to be a pretty typical move from Deloitte, who is notoriously conservative relative to its autumnally-hued rival. I’m sure if this plan is carried out, they’ll attempt to add in their own quirks to differentiate themselves but I’d be surprised if amounted to anything significant. If you hear any more rumors, contrary or supporting of this latest news, get in touch.

PwC Report Finds That Wildly Optimistic Projections for Visitors to the NASCAR Hall of Fame Basically Came Out of Thin Air

For some people, NASCAR is a big deal. So big that it, like other “sports,” deserves a hall of fame. The location of which is carefully chosen after a competition amongst cities who feel they are best suited to give the legends of the sport an appropriate and worthy grounds which to immortalize their seemingly noteworthy accomplishments. For NASCAR, this city was Charlotte, North Carolina. The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, who operates the Hall of Fame, predicted that the facility would be a monstrous success with 800,00 visitors coming to this shrine of southern boys behind steering wheels in its first year.

Things didn’t really turn out as planned with disappointing attendance and operating losses. Of course this ruffled a few feathers and they invited PwC to perform an “80-hour, monthlong audit” to see what’s what.

Among its findings: Projections for 800,000 visitors in the $200 million NASCAR museum’s first year of operation were based on bluster as much as anything. “Our limited analyses have not identified due diligence or studies supporting these projections,” the PwC report states. “Rather, we understand from our discussions with CRVA representatives that earlier, more modest attendance projections were revised as the competition between Charlotte, Atlanta, and Daytona intensified for the Hall of Fame. It is not clear what, if any, due diligence was conducted in support of these upward revisions.”

PwC report questions NASCAR Hall of Fame numbers [CBJ]

Court Finds That PwC Might Have a ‘Macho Culture’ But It Didn’t Discriminate Against a Former Partner Who Was Basically Having a Nervous Breakdown

Last year we told you about Colin Tenner who was suing PwC on the grounds of disability discrimination. If you remember, back in 2009 Tenner was told his services were no longer needed after he took some sick time due to depression and severe stress that was a result of a client he was serving and his bosses inside P. Dubs. Tenner’s fellow partners allegedly weren’t impressed by this pansyness, as one partner said “real partners don’t get sick.”

While the judge in the tribunal said that some of these partners “were clearly at the end of the queue when tact and sensitivity were being handed out,” it wasn’t enough to constitute discrimination and Tenner’s suit was thrown out.

An industrial tribunal found that while there may have been a “macho culture within the firm”, it did not accept Mr Tenner had been discriminated against. […] [T]he tribunal said there was no evidence that any of the witnesses for PWC “showed any animosity, prejudice, or intolerance to disabled persons”.

In other words, they weren’t saying “that skitzo retard shouldn’t be calling in sick.” Apparently that’s what was needed here.

PWC partner’s discrimination case is dismissed [BBC]

(UPDATE) Who Wants to Comb Over the New Jersey Nets’ Financial Statements?

Deadspin has gotten its hands on more sports team financial statements, this time those of the NBA’s New Jersey Nets for fiscal years 2004-2006. The NBA owners are set to officially lock out the players tonight at midnight and the strangest piece of information – and some say the cause of the owner/player beef – is highlighted in Tommy Craggs’ post which is known as “roster depreciation allowance.”

UPDATE: Deadspin has updated their post to state that the initial analysis of the RDA was incorrect. That is, the $25.1 million was not RDA but rather the loss the team took on a player contract in that fiscal year (Craggs speculates that it was Dikembe Mutombo). Craggs then writes:

The example is bad, and I apologize for that. I’m leaving the text here for a couple reasons: 1.) The roster depreciation allowance is real, even if we’ve misidentified it here, and it provides owners with a significant tax shelter based on a baroque logic. 2.) The Nets, like all franchises, do use large paper losses to pad their expenses.

I’ve updated the blockquote after the jump to show Deadspin’s note of the correction. They’ve also included some analysis from ESPN and a statement from the NBA’s CFO.

In 2004, the Nets had a $25 million “Loss on players’ contracts” which you can see here on the team’s income statement:

Craggs explains:

The first thing to do is toss out that $25 million loss, says Rodney Fort, a sports economist at the University of Michigan [See correction above.]. That’s not a real loss. That’s house money. The Nets didn’t have to write any checks for $25 million. What that $25 million represents is the amount by which Nets owners reduced their tax obligation under something called a roster depreciation allowance, or RDA.

Bear with me now. The RDA dates back to 1959, and was maybe [sports franchise owner] Bill Veeck’s biggest hustle in a long lifetime of hustles. Veeck argued to the IRS that professional athletes, once they’ve been paid for, “waste away” like livestock. Therefore a sports team’s roster, like a farmer’s cattle or an office copy machine or a new Volvo, is a depreciable asset.

The underlying logic is specious at best. As Fort points out, a team’s roster at any given moment isn’t actually depreciating. While some players are fading with age, others are developing and improving. But the Nets don’t have to pay more taxes when a player becomes more valuable. And in any case, the cost of depreciation is borne by the athletes themselves, when they pass their primes and lose their personal earning power.

As Craggs notes, if that loss, which also saved the team about $9 million in taxes, doesn’t exist, you’ve got a $7 million profit (see update above). But since we’re talking about rich owners with the hands in honeypots all over the place, a profit really doesn’t do them any good on an investment like a sports franchise. Particularly one in New Jersey that was in the process of being sold back in 2004.

Craggs’ whole post is excellent, so check it out. In the meantime, I’ll note some other interesting things from 2004 (financials, in full on page 2) include:

• An enormous working capital deficit of $124 million. This was mostly due to a $95 million term loan the team was guaranteed by a partnership called “YankeeNets” which was created when the then-owners, Lewis Katz and Ray Chambers, bought 37.5% of the New York Yankees Partnership. YankeeNets was 99% owned by Katz and Chambers. It’s all pretty convoluted but I don’t know of any business that wants a huge working capital deficit like that. Even if the term loan was omitted, the negative working capital would be over $29 million, with accrued salaries being nearly double of current assets.

• The enormous members deficit of $81 million, again exacerbated by the phony loss of $27 million.

• Negative net cash flow from operations of $20 million.

• Under Note 5, “Intangible Assets” you can see that players’ contracts were completely amortized for a net value of $0.

Of course when you look at the 2005 and 2006 financial statements (page 3), things look very different.

• For starters the term loan has jumped into long-term liabilities but the team still has a pathetic working capital of negative $16.8 million in ’06 and negative $25.3 million in ’05.

• Note that depreciation and amortization is now itemized on the income statement for $41 million and $42 million in ’06 and ’05 respectively. These make a huge portion of their losses from operations. D&A did not have its own line item in the ’04 financials.

• In the two years presented there were member distributions of over $15 million and large negative balances for cash flows used in operating activities.

As we’ve seen with the New Orleans Hornets, you can own a NBA franchise but that doesn’t mean you have to run it like anything that closely resembles successful business (at least i the traditional sense). For starters, you don’t have to answer to anyone except your co-owners with whom you worked out this strategy. I guess you could consider loyal fans to be stakeholders in your organization but my guess is most owners don’t.

I gave these a real quick and dirty look, so if you’ve got the time (and need to distract yourself until the holiday weekend starts) pour over these and call anything else weird you see. Enjoy.

Nets 04

Nets 0506

PwC’s Dennis Nally Reminds Everyone That Audits Aren’t Designed to Detect Fraud, Wants to Meet the Pope, Isn’t Interested in Joining You for Hot Yoga

The Financial Times published an interview with PwC International Chairman Dennis Nally over the weekend and we learn a few interesting things about DN that you probably didn’t know. For starters, he’s very aware that his firm is in a tussle for title of the largest professional services firm ON EARTH, “We’re in a real dog race to continue to sustain our leadership position as the largest professional services network in the world,” he told the FT. Of course this gives us the impression that Denny doesn’t believe that P. Dubs has relinquished the Biggest of the Big 4 title, as some other CEOs have claimed.

And as you might expect, there are various softening questions thrown around, including:

1) Leaders he admires – he wants to meet The Pope because “[Nally] seems impressed by the feat of co-ordination.”

2) Feats of strength – He practiced hot yoga to “strengthen his golf swing” but gave it up because “I found that you had a tendency to over-workout your muscles.”

Despite those little tidbits, Helen Thomas manages to get under Nally’s skin a little when she asks if “auditors should rightly find themselves in the line of fire” when fraud or “disingenuous” accounting occurs:

Mr Nally crosses his arms across his monogrammed shirt, for the first time looking a touch defensive. “There are professional standards out there [and] an audit is not designed under those standards to detect fraud,” he says, pointing out that detecting fraudulent behaviour rests on other indications including a company’s governance, management tone and control systems. “The reasons it has been done that way is because, while we always hear and read about the high-profile fraud, the number of those situations that you actually encounter in practice is very de minimis.

Notice that he doesn’t directly address the “disingenuous” accounting. Examples which might include, say, AIG and Freddie Mac, but rather addressed fraud which is easy to fall back on, since the expectations gap is so blatant (something he has mentioned before).

His statement also appears to indicate that he feels situations like Satyam are immaterial, unless by “de minimis” he intended to mean “rare in occurrence.” But, then again, I suppose semantics are also de minimis.

The man who would be biggest [FT]

Is PwC the New KPMG?

From the mailbag:

Hi Caleb,

I am considering becoming an experienced hire at PwC, however I have heard some strange things and can’t seem to get a solid angle on them. I have heard that PwC (still) doesn’t let you expense lunches when traveling. I’ve also heard that PwC is still on Windows XP with Office 2003, Lotus Notes email and using Lenovo ThinkPads. Can you please help me confirm or deny these rumors and add some color around them? Also, are there other things at PwC that I should be wary of? Is PwC the new KPMG?

Thanks,

Concerned Potential Recruit


To the best my knowledge, Concerned, I’ll address these one at at time:

1. I have heard that PwC (still) doesn’t let you expense lunches when traveling. – True. PwC does not allow you to expense lunches when traveling, although it’s my understanding that a “business lunch” is reimbursable.

2. I’ve also heard that PwC is still on Windows XP with Office 2003 – Partially true. P. Dubs is on XP but is running Office 2007.

3. Lotus Notes email – True. There were some layoffs of LN developers way back in the fall of ’09 but it’s our understanding that they still run it.

4. Lenovo ThinkPads – True. You were maybe expecting iPads? Those are for bonuses only.

5. Are there other things at PwC that I should be wary of? – I’d start here.

6. Is PwC the new KPMG? – Um, no. Unless you’re consider all the KPMG partners they’ve picked up makes it the “new KPMG.”

Comp Watch ’11: Sit-downs at PwC Starting This Week

From the mailbag:

Any rumors on PwC comp going around yet? Partner discussions are supposed to start this week and go through next.

After all the discussion around PwC’s new compensation structure one may have thought that was enough to keep people talking for months. Fortunately, plenty of mini-BoMos out there are anxious about this year’s compensation adjustment and since the fiscal year ends next Thursday, it’s not a wonder. Sooo, if you’ve been (un)fortunate enough to have your little money chat let everyone know how it went. Don’t spare the details: office, level, practice, etc.

Promotion Watch ’11: PwC Admits 136 New Partners

Last year, we learned about new partner promotions at the House of Moritz the first week of June. This year, we had to wait for a press release from the Denver office to get issued before we heard anything about it. Now, I’m not mad (although Adrienne probably is) just disappointed. If you forgot how to get in touch with us, it’s a simple as clicking email us or on our names in the margin. Regardless, we got on the horn and managed to get the whole scoop.


136 new partners admitted firm-wide, representing all PwC service lines.
–53 new partners in Assurance,
–50 in Tax,
–32 in Advisory and
–one in Internal Firm Services.

The new class of 136 is 53 more than last year, so that clears a few extra spots out of the parking lot at senior manager. The promotions bring the total count of partners in the States to over 2,300.

So a hearty congratulations to all the new PwC partners. No doubt you’ve worked and worked and worked for it. We just hope emotions were kept in check at any celebrations.