Search results

I'm inclined to think every government department (incl. the army, government offices, departments, even local councils) would need both accountants/finance, as well as external auditors.

So do you guys approve of the use of participation marks contributing to overall mark? Sure it might result in some pretty obvious things being said, but I noticed in my tutorials where everybody really gets into it and is quite interested, then everybody benefits.

May I ask which firm? I think each firm has it's own training procedures/introduction/welcomes... so it's hard to really provide any tips without knowing more information.

Assuming that the budgeted fees/revenue is high enough to be on the list (as it's sorted purely by budgeted fees $m), then either it's been consolidated in another entry (some "networks" use different names for the offices around the country perhaps?), or they chose not to submit information to...

I don't know enough about this to make a definitive/accurate statement. As a tip, try comparing the sections which auditors sign off on in this year compared to prior years.

Discuss it with the firm who offered you the cadetship. Maybe you can work something out.

For starters, every firm has it's own culture which is what you (or whoever's interested) needs to figure out based on websites, recruitment evenings, etc... I know this can only go so far, but relying on what people say to you on a forum, especially considering 99% of people here have probably...

It depends how well you knew the stuff beforehand... I mean if you studied say Economics in high school, it'll be alot easier to bluff your way through your uni exams. .... although why you put zero effort in throughout the semester is beyond me considering that uni isn't free.

I find it weird that this is the "Camry" which Asia got... would've expected them to get a smaller Camry than Australia.

Quite a few people I've heard of only use Law to get them a job, but don't actually work in the field at all.

All comes down to personality really. Not everyone aspires to work in a big organisation. Some people prefer smaller environments where you work in a much tighter knit group, smaller clients, better recognition of achievements, etc...

There's always alot of people who move from the bigger firms into the smaller firms, and vice versa. In the past I think it was alot of people started big and moved out, but nowadays, there's alot of travel in both directions.

Way to bump an old thread. So did you calculate the salary based on the rate, or the rate calculated based on the salary?

LOL I don't get 9 to 5.... but I also don't have to go back to work after night classes! *pat pat* See you round UNSW mate.

I think it's all to do with the marketing and whole "opportunities" which won't limit your future prospects whether it be because there are promotional opportunities, increased recognition of your work experience, more training potential, larger clients experience, etc... But really, I joined...

From what I've heard, the Horwath team in Deloitte will be acting pretty much like before with their own people/structure, except in Grov Place using the Deloitte branding. There won't be much change to the actual people involved. Support staff however... IMO if you're at Deloitte, it's quite...

ROFL good to hear that you aren't biased at all :P

It's bridging the gap but it's still got quite a bit to go before it catches up. Considering it's not exactly organic growth... it's difficult to see how things will play out in the long run. And I still stand by my "culture" of the firm belief... it's not so much the culture of the firm...

Unless you really want the Nano size/weight and don't intend to watch photos/video, then go for the Nano... but for all other reasons, go Video.

I believe they are moving to the Deloitte office and am betting they'll be operating using the Deloitte name; but hey, who's to say what can happen? Maybe they'll even spinoff a new MMA division? *shrugs*