I do know that SOME Audit Partners at D&T make more than 900k/year, and I do know that MOST Consulting Partners make more than 300k/year. In fact, the replies on this board are incorrect in stating that there is a ‘target’ monetary amount. Partnership at D&T is focuses around ‘units’ or ‘unit values’. After a Partner ‘buys-in’, they are awarded a number of units. Each year, instead of raises, Partners are given additional unit values. The targets that the Partnership makes are around the value of 1 unit. The past several years, the target has been $1,000.

The point is, once you become Partner, you are in a sense at the bottom of the totem pole. Equity increases as you spend additional years at the Partnership level- this is why it is incorrect saying that a single monetary value is targeted for all Partners- because all are at different equity levels.

Another thing to note- as of several years ago, the Partnership is spread across all D&T entities. Therefore, Partners in Audit with the same amount of units as Partners in Consulting will make the same amount of money. This makes sense because clients cannot hire the same firm to Audit and Consult- this obviously created a sense of competition among the entities. That has since changed.

I would generalize to say that new Partners make around 175 – 250k. Partners that have spent about 20 years (at Partner level) make around 1 million. Regional and national Partners make between 1.2-1.5 million. It might sound like a lot, but remember that they are in the highest tax bracket, they do not have 401(k)s, they pay for their own health insurance, etc.

Partnership is very complicated in D&T and it takes a lot of hard work to get there. If you don’t love the work, it is probably not worth it. Do something you love and be happy.

They do validate the performance of the company through testing. Will it catch all fraud? No. Does it help keep 90% of companies within the bounds of GAAP? Yes.

I don’t suggest that there should be no accountability, and I don’t have a solution to replace audits. I just want the general public to have a better understanding of what audits are, and of what little benefits they actually provide.

I’ve not made “accusations.” I’ve made statements of opinion and fact about audits and how little value they provide. Knowing facts and having opinions about audits doesn’t require me to tell you what else should be done to clean up financial reporting.

Never assume anything in regard to me. Thanks for participating.

Your outlandish statements are very typical – you make accusations without backing them up with how they should be changed. If you were a Staff person on my job, I’d tell you to figure out at least one solution before wasting my time with some ridiculous statement.

If audits are pointless, am I correct to assume you are advocating that they should not be required for public companies? Do you really believe we should all put our pencils down (or our laptops away) right now and forget about issuing audit reports for FY 2008?

I don’t know what the alternative is to audits, but I still feel that audits are ineffective in many ways.

The opinions themselves don’t disclaim the auditors’ responsibility to find fraud. Their engagement letters do. And the management representation letters that they require clients to sign do.

I understand you are a Forensic Accounting “expert”, and you probably feel your line of work is more valuable than that of a mere auditor, but you still have not answered my question, which I’ll ask for a third time: What is the alternative to requiring company’s to undergo audits? Would you rather companies report whatever they want to report with no oversight whatsoever?

Also, please show me an audit opinion from a Big 4 firm that specifically says “our audits are not designed, nor are we responsible for detecting fraud”. Most that I have read state they are planned and performed to “obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.”