quote:

---

When I was an associate, during busy season the Internal Audit Manager at the client gave my senior manager a printout of what websites were associated with the IP addresses in our conference room. Texags was at the top of the list. My SM told the guy he should not be monitoring their external auditors internet usage,...and then he had a talk with us.

---

VPN. Always.

Joe is correct for the most part. The HR department puts on the internships and gets that all set up. Each school has reps that go on campus and are hands on recruiting. This means we go to career fair, select the candidates that we would like to interview out of the ones that apply, take candidates out to dinner, interview the candidates, and recommend/extend the offers.

We are also hands on with the scholarships that the company awards to applicants at our respective schools. We also attend seminars and speaking events on campus as well as leading a class on campus. This is not my job but something I volunteerer to do after being selected. I say volunteer because I am not paid to recruit. It's something I enjoy so I do that on top of my job. Living in Houston it's an hour and a half away from CS so I can make a trip after work and be home by 10-11.

quote:

---

Haven't read all the posts but each big four promotes at different rates from what I hear with EY promoting faster and PwC on the slower end

---

My understanding is that the only difference between PwC and others is what they call years 3 and 4.

PwC:
Year 1 - Staff 1
Year 2 - Staff 2
Year 3 - Staff 3
Year 4 - Senior 1
Year 5 - Senior 2
Year 6 - Manager

Other Big 4:
Year 1 - Staff 1
Year 2 - Staff 2
Year 3 - Senior 1
Year 4 - Senior 2
Year 5 - Senior 3
Year 6 - Manager

Maybe a PwC person can chime in on that though.

Comments on the partner track conversation:

Making partner seems more like a war of attrition. I would guess that when they were staff/seniors/managers, 90% of Big 4 partners were the "reevaluate each year" types, and only 10% were the "my goal is to make partner" types. It's easy to say you want to make partner after one internship; it's harder to put in the grueling 12+ years required to get there.

I would also add that although you start to make bank as a partner, my observation has been that you really don't slow down all that much. You gain a lot of flexibility, but the hours are still there, as is the constant pressure to meet budgets and sell work.

Comments on different service lines:
Audit - works the most hours for the least pay, but has the most exit opportunities
Tax - slightly fewer hours than audit, slightly higher pay, but also fewer exit opportunities
Transactions - I actually think the hours overall are about the same as audit or tax, but it's more unpredictable; it is an on-demand business, budgets are tracked more closely, you make slightly more than audit or tax, and the exit opportunities are a mixed bag
Advisory - no clue

Recommended duration at Big 4:
Generally, I agree with most of the other posters that a stint in the Big 4 is a good idea and the longer you can endure the grind, the better. That being said, there is a reason the turnover is so high. It's part of the business model: pay inexperienced new hires as little as possible, work them as hard as possible, promote the ones that tough it out, and replace the ones who don't with more cheap new hires. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Isn't at least one divorce also a pre-req to making partner?

It's interesting, of our tax partners who are still on their 1st marriage, almost all of the spouses were in accounting at one time. I did the backward career track - started in middle market and then moved up to big 4 as a manager. Overall I work more during provision season, but less during the rest of year that I did in middle market, and on more interesting clients. It is a grind, but the rewards are worth it. I would be bored to tears I in industry though. I am intending to stay and go for partner, but it will likely take me closer to 16 or 17 years. Since I changed firms in the middle and had 3 kids.

I'm almost 6 years in doing audit. I think I'm getting serious at this point about looking around and making the jump at the right job.

quote:

---

terrible Internal Audit department.

---

Redundant.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Haven't read all the posts but each big four promotes at different rates from what I hear with EY promoting faster and PwC on the slower end

---

My understanding is that the only difference between PwC and others is what they call years 3 and 4.

PwC:
Year 1 - Staff 1
Year 2 - Staff 2
Year 3 - Staff 3
Year 4 - Senior 1
Year 5 - Senior 2
Year 6 - Manager

Other Big 4:
Year 1 - Staff 1
Year 2 - Staff 2
Year 3 - Senior 1
Year 4 - Senior 2
Year 5 - Senior 3
Year 6 - Manager

Maybe a PwC person can chime in on that though.

Comments on the partner track conversation:

Making partner seems more like a war of attrition. I would guess that when they were staff/seniors/managers, 90% of Big 4 partners were the "reevaluate each year" types, and only 10% were the "my goal is to make partner" types. It's easy to say you want to make partner after one internship; it's harder to put in the grueling 12+ years required to get there.

I would also add that although you start to make bank as a partner, my observation has been that you really don't slow down all that much. You gain a lot of flexibility, but the hours are still there, as is the constant pressure to meet budgets and sell work.

Comments on different service lines:
Audit - works the most hours for the least pay, but has the most exit opportunities
Tax - slightly fewer hours than audit, slightly higher pay, but also fewer exit opportunities
Transactions - I actually think the hours overall are about the same as audit or tax, but it's more unpredictable; it is an on-demand business, budgets are tracked more closely, you make slightly more than audit or tax, and the exit opportunities are a mixed bag
Advisory - no clue

Recommended duration at Big 4:
Generally, I agree with most of the other posters that a stint in the Big 4 is a good idea and the longer you can endure the grind, the better. That being said, there is a reason the turnover is so high. It's part of the business model: pay inexperienced new hires as little as possible, work them as hard as possible, promote the ones that tough it out, and replace the ones who don't with more cheap new hires. Lather, rinse, repeat.

---

I have a few friends at PWC and I'd agree.

I started at a small local firm and then went to 2 large local mid-market firms (the last one got bought by a large regional top 25 firm) before joining a small/mid-market firm as a start-up. So I've bounced around but agree that a lot of public accounting is very much the same as far as put in the hours and work, etc. But at the same time I fully recognize that Big 4 certainly carries more cachet if you plan on jumping into industry.

I'll pose this question: what jobs in "industry" do accountants find interesting? I think back to when I was a soph at A&M and the business school sold me on the PPA program somehow (I honestly don't remember what was most appealing about it). Ultimately I interned in tax and determined accounting was not interesting to me despite me being really good at it. So I changed to the finance track and got lucky to graduate in a great market for investment banking (interview/job offer in fall 2006). Now I'm in "industry" doing strategy, m&a and FP&A type work. When I walk down the accounting hall I don't see many interesting roles...so what is it in industry that draws you out of big 4 other than just better hours?

Edit: I probably jaded some on the PPA with the above post so let me clarify --- I would not be nearly as successful today without having done the PPA for a number of reasons.

No need to clarify, your post read like typical finance guy snobbery from the beginning.

So what industry role is more interesting than a big 4 role? I look at what auditors or tax people at Big 4 firms do and that seems much more interesting than what accountants at my company do. Of course I think my job is more interesting as I chose to not go do accounting and to instead pursue what I perceived to be more interesting and more challenging work (it helped that it paid more as well).

And I wasn't clarifying that I view accounting type work as boring, I was clarifying that despite my view of that, I still think the PPA experience can lead to other great opportunities that you might not otherwise have if you just went straight BBA in Finance.

I just made the jump after 3 years. Will comment more later.

Do the accountants at your job have previous public experience? A lot of the standard jobs for lower level experience workers are the "reconcile to GL daily" or "prepare journal entries."

Most of the people I know who exited either went into an accounting manager role or financial reporting. Maybe FRM isn't that bad, and most of the ones I deal with are very good at their job, but it does seem monotonous.

We have probably 5-7 with prior public experience. The ones who came over with 2-3 years experience do what you described. The ones with a little more help prepare the 10k type stuff. Just reading the 10k makes my head hurt so not sure I would ever want a hand in creating it. Then you have our CAO, Controller and Director of IA. Director of IA might actually be the most interesting role of the bunch, though I am sure CAO pays more. Our other accountants with no public experience do things like A/P processing and revenue accounting. I would rank revenue accounting over GL accounting or the public reporting stuff in terms of how interesting the work is.

I think one of the things that has always irked me about PPA (and public in general), is the idea that public is the golden ticket to becoming CFO at a Fortune 500. That's probably true to some extent, but I think too many people coming out of school think they will be providing strategic direction or be in on management meetings. In reality, you're not really marketable for the first few years of public.

That being said, I don't think audit is a value added service. We spend so much time scrambling to verify numbers at a certain point in time, but once that is complete there's nothing else to do. Sure I can tell you loans went up this year and interest income went up, and we tested in accordance with PCAOB, but I am not worried about how they have increased loans, what their growth strategy for the next few years are, or other things you would need in a management position.

TL;DR - accounting isnt that great, but public auditing isn't much better

/end rant

Audit hasn't been a value added service for some time. Just saying.

My dad is a CPA too. He has been in an industry type role almost his entire career. He has been an Office Manager, Accounting Manager, Plant Controller, Corp Controller, Corporate Services Manager, and CFO. At one point he was in manufacturing and having to implement accounting systems and processes and now he works for a professional services firm (again)

That being said I'm probably not leaving public anytime soon. I just like the flexibility I get and Im doing tax work for small businesses (primarily) so I get a huge array of different clients

As a Big 6 alumnus and someone who hires a lot of people from public accounting, I'm becoming increasingly disappointed with the quality of candidates being put out by the Big 4 firms. It's getting to the point that I would I tell anyone coming out of college to think twice about going to a Big 4 firm right out of school. Comparing the relative costs and skillsets of applicants recently graduating from Texas professional accounting programs and applicants out of Big 4 firms, the case for hiring from Big 4 is becoming considerably less certain.

Due to the fact that Big 4 firms are so scared to death of minor documentation points being brought up under peer review, I've found that the Big 4 firms reward accountants who know how to document more than those who know how to audit. Auditors seem increasingly bound to work programs that are poorly suited to their clients. Further, auditors on large engagement seem silo'd into seeing only certain portions of a set of financials. When we hire from the Big 4, we often get someone who has very little idea how to actually prepare a set of financials. There are certain nuances of preparing and reviewing financials that I often take for granted that they just don't get because they have never had a chance to see the "big picture" on their audit engagements. Combine that with the sense of entitlement that is attached to Big 4 alumni, and you have someone who is little better prepared to contribute than someone right out of school.

I will say that I'm finding that auditors at "middle market" firms generally don't seem to have a lot of the issues I've listed above. They get the opportunity to see more of the financial statement prep process and seem more ready to contribute.

TL;DR: Big 4 isn't as great at developing talent as it once was.

quote:

---

As a Big 6 alumnus and someone who hires a lot of people from public accounting, I'm becoming increasingly disappointed with the quality of candidates being put out by the Big 4 firms. It's getting to the point that I would I tell anyone coming out of college to think twice about going to a Big 4 firm right out of school. Comparing the relative costs and skillsets of applicants recently graduating from Texas professional accounting programs and applicants out of Big 4 firms, the case for hiring from Big 4 is becoming considerably less certain.

Due to the fact that Big 4 firms are so scared to death of minor documentation points being brought up under peer review, I've found that the Big 4 firms reward accountants who know how to document more than those who know how to audit. Auditors seem increasingly bound to work programs that are poorly suited to their clients. Further, auditors on large engagement seem silo'd into seeing only certain portions of a set of financials. When we hire from the Big 4, we often get someone who has very little idea how to actually prepare a set of financials. There are certain nuances of preparing and reviewing financials that I often take for granted that they just don't get because they have never had a chance to see the "big picture" on their audit engagements. Combine that with the sense of entitlement that is attached to Big 4 alumni, and you have someone who is little better prepared to contribute than someone right out of school.

I will say that I'm finding that auditors at "middle market" firms generally don't seem to have a lot of the issues I've listed above. They get the opportunity to see more of the financial statement prep process and seem more ready to contribute.

TL;DR: Big 4 isn't as great at developing talent as it once was.

---

Just curious, as someone who worked at a middle market firm (BDO/McG/GT) in valuations - so not auditing but interacted with auditors daily, which 2 would you include in the Big 6?

I'm pretty sure he means back when it was called the big 6 because Arthur Andersen was still around and PwC was still PW and C&L. GT was trying to sell itself to my PPA class (I graduated in 2011 from PPA) as part of a Big 5, which I always thought was a dumb idea. Why have yourself compared to big and "better" (or at least thought to be better by everyone in PPA) firms rather than being the best of the small guys and the best option for those that didn't like the Big 4 atmosphere?

I think the thought was to have GT fill AA's designated day of the week rather than competing with middle markets (who if I remember had to compete with the designated days on their events). Don't think that was communicated well.

GT needs to focus on DYNAMIC clients with an INSTINCT for GROWTH their CHOSEN markets.

Gotcha, thought that was the case after I posted.

I don't disagree with the above Big 6 poster...I came on around Sarbanes Oxley and left a couple years ago so saw the full arch of change. It also doesn't help (sweeping generalization coming) that anyone under the age of 25 doesn't remember a time without the internet where the answer to any question was a click away. Critical thinking and problem solving seems to have suffered as a result IMO. [/steps off soapbox]

I didn't go into public because I realized it probably wouldn't be a good fit for me. I ended up at an E&P company.

I lucked into starting in international. When dealing with international subs and local requirements its a whole different can of worms. My current team is focused on new ventures so we do everything - local ap, gl, projects, jv, revenue, local tax requirements, deal with local governments, statutory financial statements and various GAAPs. It's never dull and always something new. Once a venture gets established and we have a local office the duties shift to them. We get new projects all the time.

I have done international divestitures which is also never boring. Tons of analysis and interpretation of contracts written by lawyers to produce financial reports, calculate sales prices/gains and then the accounting for the divestment.

I have other examples of unique things I have learned but it amounts to not working in a specific accounting area.

I tend to be easily irritated by Big 4 auditors at times, but it mostly has to do with the guidance they receive from their management and lack of understanding the business. I get twenty questions in which none of them address the actual question they have because they don't understand what they are auditing.

quote:

---

I didn't go into public because I realized it probably wouldn't be a good fit for me. I ended up at an E&P company.

I lucked into starting in international. When dealing with international subs and local requirements its a whole different can of worms. My current team is focused on new ventures so we do everything - local ap, gl, projects, jv, revenue, local tax requirements, deal with local governments, statutory financial statements and various GAAPs. It's never dull and always something new. Once a venture gets established and we have a local office the duties shift to them. We get new projects all the time.

I have done international divestitures which is also never boring. Tons of analysis and interpretation of contracts written by lawyers to produce financial reports, calculate sales prices/gains and then the accounting for the divestment.

I have other examples of unique things I have learned but it amounts to not working in a specific accounting area.

I tend to be easily irritated by Big 4 auditors at times, but it mostly has to do with the guidance they receive from their management and lack of understanding the business. I get twenty questions in which none of them address the actual question they have because they don't understand what they are auditing.

---

I have been on both sides of an audit (for valuations/PPA/business combinations), so yes I completely understand how annoying the questions can be. We didn't have a particular industry focus (val team at my old firm was about 2 people), so we didn't have the luxury of time to understand every company's operations before sending out questions. I believe its pretty normal to send out a boiler plate pack of questions to get the most basic answers and when its really busy to buy some time.

If you are frustrated by your auditors you can take a few minutes to educate them. If they arent dumb it will help them with future dumb questions so you don't get them. If they're dumb don't waste your time.

quote:

---

If you are frustrated by your auditors you can take a few minutes to educate them. If they arent dumb it will help them with future dumb questions so you don't get them. If they're dumb don't waste your time.

---

I am usually a patient person and don't mind explaining things to the new staff/seniors. I'm probably a bit jaded because they asked about twenty times the questions of everyone this year end. I was still getting dumb questions the Friday before we filed with the SEC which I had never had in the prior 7 years. One revenue accountant made a joke about how she didn't know what else she could give them to make them happy outside her first born.

I have also had issues with statutory audits. I currently have one statutory audit we started last April that is still not finished for some 2013 statements. We are literally a partner review away from finalizing the audit. As soon as we finish the big 4 firm is getting fired and replaced with a local firm for 2014. We have definitely learned internationally that smaller local firms are much better suited for local audits.

quote:

---

If you are frustrated by your auditors you can take a few minutes to educate them. If they arent dumb it will help them with future dumb questions so you don't get them. If they're dumb don't waste your time.

---

I agree with this. The problem is that in my recent experience (the past 3-5 years), auditor soft skills are abysmal. They don't have the time or patience to deign to being educated by the client. Even further, they generally seem on the verge of suspicion any time a client attempts to educate.

When I was trained at the beginning of my career, I was taught to seek out face-to-face opportunities to work with the client and then...let the client talk because when you get the client talking, that's when you learn REALLY learn where the risks are. That concept has been thrown out in favor of spending that time getting things into the "database."