big 4 accounting firm advisory 點解唔夠 MBB嚟？

Conflict of interest?
其實關係不大
好多公司都直接搵Big Four一條龍做晒audit, consult, tax, etc

巴打 big4 advisory 轉 mbb ?

It is not really a question of whether MBB is really better than the Big 4s when it comes to strategy consulting. A better way to put this would be as to why the Big 4s lag behind MBB, even when they have considerably larger resources and capital base. According to me, there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, it is about the niche that these firms have created over the years. For example, the big 4s specialise in audit and taxation, while MBBs specialise in consulting. So, lets say, a PwC or a Deloitte will not pivot its attention from audit practice so as to focus on consulting.

Secondly, and this is rather very important, “Independence Restrictions”. Working in PwC, core audit, has made me aware of the humongous and extremely rigid independence requirements before accepting an audit and assurance engagement. This restricts PwC from taking up consulting assignments of present and sometimes even prospective audit clients. And considering that PwC was always a mainstream audit firm, it gives up consulting assignments and pursues audit.

Independence restrictions are the main reason, I believe, as to why the Big 4s lag behind the MBBs when it comes to consulting. However, we do see takeovers happening to work a way around this. For example, Strategy& and PRTM being taken over by PwC. Also, I believe that had it not been for these structural limitations, the Big 4s would have been at par with the MBBs, considering that they are considerably larger in size (Revenue of PwC is about 35.9 Billion USD as compared to McKinsey, which stands at 8.4 Billion USD).

真係好D 一個gbus做既deck同普通bba first hon做既已經可以有分別
好多時d low level work真係計數整圖度橋 都係D細既做 剩係個堆in take smart少少已經夠分別 都唔好講英文同氣場

audit client大把job係legally唔做得啵

樓主啱

其實hang seng<<<<<<<< goldman sachs
反正大家都係數下銀紙
恆生又多d atm

舉個例 無fact check

一間幫蘋果(唔係報紙)度橋黎緊五年product同market strategy，一間幫中人壽搞D濕鳩轉型，你覺得個exposure爭大唔大?

有間買完左間M之頭之後有得同MBB打啵

唔知mmb咩情況
但big4 advisory每條team都有一兩個好水皮

1.慣性收視
2.真係做得好D

不過其實傳統management consultant / strategy consulting越做越難做 margin可以好低 D workload又一時時 同一個caliber既人去做IBD/S&T仲好

係 big4出嚟嘅result >>>> mbb

可以幾有分別發
First hon 喎！
喺澳洲只有少過10%嘅人有機會讀hon
而選擇讀hon 而又maintain到hon grade （75 above out of 100)先至真係可以稱得上hons grad
以我認知first hon係最top嗰班嚟㗎啦喎都唔夠gbus嚟?
仲有有經驗果班advisory lead住啲細嘅其實出到嚟嘅效果咪又係差唔多？

Goldman 好多範疇恒生冇啊大哥
係到攞hsbc 啦

其實中人壽exposure 都唔細
間公司都top 500
咁如果企喺蘋果嘅立場黎睇點解佢唔揀big4 而揀mbb? 佢比到啲咩服務係會優勝得過big4 ?

但係點解好多人尤其連登仔成日喺度講話consulting advisory 有排都未到bug4 出聲
仲話bug4 啲人好廢質素又差？

做pe, big 4 d野真心廢d
只可以話big 4 d 人做野standard, 但諗野跳唔出個框。人地mbb innovative d

第2段你話大家搵到啲合適嘅方向
但係依家四大會計行都收買咗好多諮詢公司喎
佢哋依家係想跳出個框框加強自己嘅諮詢能力
≠要放棄佢哋審計呢個王牌

咁你話Pwc independence restriction 好古板
咁其他四大呢？

好肯定同你講，係人既質素問題
MBB一定係三大/ivy league/oxbridge top of the top入去
Big 4就夾雜大量local 大學second hon BBA

加上文化都唔同
MBB著重多d係戰略上既thinking, 著重problem solving，create impact，諗野係長遠同有願景多d。所以好多創新idea同framework都係佢地首先提出，簡單黎講係有thought leadership

Big4 大部分都係implementation
Project又收得平
一條team 10個consultant做12個月 process operational既野，點會develop到strategic thinking既人才

仲有歷史因素、平台因素
Consulting好多時都係leverage past project experience
你公司做開果個industry 果個topic你自自然然有多d expert 多d past knowledge 去支持你做

MBB 同big 4 嘅客路都唔同
Big 4 嘅客係要80分嘅product
MBB 嘅客要90分以上嘅product
冇人可以好客觀話big 4 每次都差過MBB
但客人寧願比多一倍價錢都唔想take risk
有錢就會請最top 嘅人材, 甚至big 4做得出色都會走入去
你話收購左好多出名嘅consulting firm, 但d 客仲keep 唔keep 到, d 人仲有冇心留係到
口碑係用時間去證明, 但而家係依個行業, MBB 係高一班

明白囇
但有樣嘢唔明嘅事點解big4consulting 一定係80分而唔係同mbb一樣有90分？
佢哋本身收購左好多出名嘅consulting firm 理論上performance係會有所提升

其實結論可唔可以話係口碑問題？

收購左其他consulting firm 自然就有更多更多past experience 架啦？

Big4好多外國grad 喎
包括我在內
同team 都好多三大加外國u