Don't be dense. So it begins, Dux. Classic sign of distress and a recession to come. Professional firms have two significant fixed costs they an cut down on: property and people.
Is this because they know too much about all their botched audits so better to get them out the building and then disappear them once enough time has elapsed?
They spend about £10m a year to put their logo on Phil "Insider trading" Mickelson's fooking hat. How about they don't do that and let some people keep their jobs
They shed several partners, fee earners, and support staff in 2012, I think it was about 1500 in total. unlike law firms, they got treated very well, with them offereing at least 12 months salary.
to be replaced by a properly regulated, anti-trust respectful industry
there are plenty of Not Big 4 firms (and most of those have less prior history of being appalling on an epic scale)
anyone who has regular dealings with accountants will know that the big 4 are not in any sense better than the middle tier ones, they just have more clout in that slightly lame mannish way
I would say that they often are better as they tend to get their pick of the grads, but the more important point is that if you are doing an international thing then you want to be serviced across all relevant jurisdictions with a certain guaranteed level of competency.
well, a lot of mid-tier firms operate as part of a network
I would not agree that big4 offers a guaranteed level of competency
a big 4 partner told me recently "of course there won't be any tax on that because it's a Not for Profit".
Imagine his displeasure when I explained that this wasn't really a term of art in UK tax.
Unfortunately his advice had by then gone beyond the confines of the room. (And, no, the entity was not even not for profit in the layman sense of the phrase)
KPMG's performance has been dire in recent years. Compared to other Big 4 or law firms with comparable global and international presence, they are some way off. I know PEP is not a helpful concept when it comes to working out what partners will get paid, but the Equity Partners have been getting the low 600s for some time and while that is a shit load of money by any standards it is about half what they should be making.
They've been culling support staff regularly since about 2010. Every few years they get rid of 100s, then they end up hiring replacements over the next few years until they realise the number has gone up again and/or they have some sort of shock to the system, then they cull them again. It's really quite poor behaviour, the saving on a per partner basis will be around £12k.
But wot Clergs said, basically. Particulalry on the passive beneficiary point.
Is that not because KPMG are shite - failed to spot HBOS, Carillion etc?
Should there not be a private company equivalent of the NAO? I am sure HMRC would love that job if they had the resources, paid for by a mandatory levy.
Re secs, Morgan Lewis just offered to buy out all their secretaries' contracts. There's no need for someone that can type as most people can type fast enough now, and knowing how to get things done is irrelevant as firms have automated workflows to get jobs to the right people and productive specialists to get it done without the jumped up little Hitler in the middle.
"There's no need for someone that can type as most people can type fast enough now, and knowing how to get things done is irrelevant as firms have automated workflows to get jobs to the right people and productive specialists to get it done without the jumped up little Hitler in the middle. "
This supports getting rid of the partner group, not the admin group...
0
0
Surely it will have to make 1/3 of is professional staff redundant too then? Or are the bean counters going to become filing monkeys?
0
0
Er filing isn't really a thing any more, dux, computers do it for you.
So I can understand the decision but still.
0
0
Ps heh@a seccie per fee earner anyway
0
0
Electronic filing is a thing.
0
0
Don't be dense. So it begins, Dux. Classic sign of distress and a recession to come. Professional firms have two significant fixed costs they an cut down on: property and people.
0
0
I have to share my PA tbf.
0
0
ducks - electronic filing happens automatically.
as do increasing quantities of professional services
:(
0
0
Is this because they know too much about all their botched audits so better to get them out the building and then disappear them once enough time has elapsed?
0
0
They're getting rid of 600 seccies.
Probably would save the same amount of money by binning 5 partners
0
0
Yes, but secretaries don't bring in fee income, do they? They're an overhead. Conversations will be happening with underperforming partners, no doubt.
0
0
if not fewer
but partners like to perpetuate the myth that clients wll ONLY WORK WITH THEM
0
0
Steady on old chap
0
0
Watch this space for office closures and discreet resignation announcements.
0
0
kpmg partners rarely actually "bring in fee income"
they are just passive beneficiaries of clients who want something done and have few choices due to legislative restrictions
0
0
I heard a woman on the phone talking to Deloitte about her desire to do something with a nuclear power plant
very worrisome
0
0
Banaman - yes, the audit stuff from Carillion has done them no favours at all. Profits down 51% on last year. Ouch.
https://www.ft.com/content/4eecbbc4-da2e-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
0
0
ooft
0
0
They spend about £10m a year to put their logo on Phil "Insider trading" Mickelson's fooking hat. How about they don't do that and let some people keep their jobs
0
0
he'd probably sue them now if they tried not to tbf
0
0
but yeah
the era of the big 4 really ought to be drawing to a close
0
0
To be replaced by?
0
0
Strutter you appear to have missed the memo to the effect that all successful private companies have to be abolished because.
0
0
They shed several partners, fee earners, and support staff in 2012, I think it was about 1500 in total. unlike law firms, they got treated very well, with them offereing at least 12 months salary.
0
0
to be replaced by a properly regulated, anti-trust respectful industry
there are plenty of Not Big 4 firms (and most of those have less prior history of being appalling on an epic scale)
anyone who has regular dealings with accountants will know that the big 4 are not in any sense better than the middle tier ones, they just have more clout in that slightly lame mannish way
0
0
no offence to the big 4 roffers, I am sure you are top of your trees
0
0
I mean the way Treasury priotises certain private sector stakeholders (particularly big4) is inexcusable really
jobs for the codgers
0
0
I would say that they often are better as they tend to get their pick of the grads, but the more important point is that if you are doing an international thing then you want to be serviced across all relevant jurisdictions with a certain guaranteed level of competency.
Mid tier firms just can’t do that.
0
0
well, a lot of mid-tier firms operate as part of a network
I would not agree that big4 offers a guaranteed level of competency
a big 4 partner told me recently "of course there won't be any tax on that because it's a Not for Profit".
Imagine his displeasure when I explained that this wasn't really a term of art in UK tax.
Unfortunately his advice had by then gone beyond the confines of the room. (And, no, the entity was not even not for profit in the layman sense of the phrase)
0
0
Well he’d have been straight onto the phone to his insurers on the back of that little exchange. Then put his house into his wife’s name.
0
0
KPMG's performance has been dire in recent years. Compared to other Big 4 or law firms with comparable global and international presence, they are some way off. I know PEP is not a helpful concept when it comes to working out what partners will get paid, but the Equity Partners have been getting the low 600s for some time and while that is a shit load of money by any standards it is about half what they should be making.
0
0
They've been culling support staff regularly since about 2010. Every few years they get rid of 100s, then they end up hiring replacements over the next few years until they realise the number has gone up again and/or they have some sort of shock to the system, then they cull them again. It's really quite poor behaviour, the saving on a per partner basis will be around £12k.
But wot Clergs said, basically. Particulalry on the passive beneficiary point.
0
0
Is that not because KPMG are shite - failed to spot HBOS, Carillion etc?
Should there not be a private company equivalent of the NAO? I am sure HMRC would love that job if they had the resources, paid for by a mandatory levy.
Re secs, Morgan Lewis just offered to buy out all their secretaries' contracts. There's no need for someone that can type as most people can type fast enough now, and knowing how to get things done is irrelevant as firms have automated workflows to get jobs to the right people and productive specialists to get it done without the jumped up little Hitler in the middle.
0
0
That’s no way to talk about
oh
0
0
"There's no need for someone that can type as most people can type fast enough now, and knowing how to get things done is irrelevant as firms have automated workflows to get jobs to the right people and productive specialists to get it done without the jumped up little Hitler in the middle. "
This supports getting rid of the partner group, not the admin group...
0
0
imagine if fees could be released to the people
Join the discussion