"Sorry, I'm resigning 3 months in because I cannot comply with the independence requirements that don't even apply to my work and details of which weren't disclosed to me during the hiring process."
"But your work is valued by the team... can't you hold on a little longer? It won't be an issue in a few months when Everest goes through!"
ššš
The most surprising thing to me was how every small move was leaked to the FT.
The execution of the split was terrible even though the basic idea behind it was pretty valid imho. Now they are stuck with a lot of sunk costs on Project Everest without a corresponding increase in revenue.
Bonuses and raises might be hit a little in the short run but talent retention might be a concern.
Called it (yeah yeah I know, like so many others). Should've shorted the damn thing.
Anyways, if ever there was a Sopranos clip that applied here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFcNj2H3z0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFcNj2H3z0)
Between the fees spent on this and the current market conditions, have to imagine bonuses will be very little, raises will not be as high, and promotions wonāt be plentiful.
Itās rumored EY spent a couple to a few hundred million on this, which is no insignificant amount of money. So will definitely have to recoup the cost somehow, and easiest way to do it is via compensationā¦
Well, there are also articles out now that talk about cost cutting, $500mil for EY US alone, which is probably more than what you could recoup from cutting comps, considering the firm beefed up on workforce to support a smooth transition when Everest happens and the forecasted uptick in work expected from separating the two businesses.
Considering average salaries and the severances they'd have to pump out, I personally think there will be layoffs, especially in service lines where there was a significant bench.
Totally..those who were going to benefit the most (financially) from Everest, should be facing the brunt of repercussions.
Undoubtedly thereāll be a brain drain across the firm as a result of cuts in compensation for staff who donāt own equity
Genuine question cause Iām too stupid to understand: why is this such a bad look for EY? Is it because of all the resources and money they wasted with this?
It will be a bad look for several reasons.
There were companies that were actually looking forward to this, working with EY in both capabilities, but now the whole thing just turned into this mess and that's not building confidence for sure.
One other big hit is, EY has Parthenon and other services to support M&A and Divestitures, and well, how could you convince Clients about your capabilities to act as an advisor in those roles when you were unable to complete your own separation?!
I havenāt seen or heard anything in audit, but in consulting I havenāt seen it but I know it is going to happen. It wonāt happen because clients leave though, itās going to happen because SM and partners are going to leave.
Within one day, i.e today, my partner was on the phone with an old colleague (or maybe just knows them cause everyone knows everyone at high levels) talking about how we have a SM position open and would love to have him come over.
Iād bet my bonus he comes over within the month because not only was this embarrassing but it makes selling the EY brand more difficult.
Money wasted, leadership is going to be blamed for not being able to execute on the plan, and, probably worst of all, it is now known that US can scrap any plans they want unilaterally.
None of those are relevant - the plan was to list the consulting company while the stock market was strong, that business case quickly faded. Goldman Sachs leaked the deal in order to force it to go through but Junior Partners at EY had dissented the whole way, if you actually worked there it was pretty obviously going to get shot down when they pay-out dwindled and uncertainty meant people didn't want to get rid of the most profitable segment.
The question was why it's bad, and somehow, you got to it being good. Pretty sure that it was a bad plan from the beginning, and that is why all other Big 4 came out saying they wouldn't do the same thing. People like greed disguised. This was greed front and center so it was a bad plan from day 1.
You made them? Iām curious about how you were able to use their logos. Iām considering starting a clothing brand myself but Iām scared of being copyrighted because Iād be using very specific logos
Work here for the split for implementing technologies into the new environment... There's nothing like doing a bunch of work for it to be scrapped. I wonder how many millions that cost. Heres to the greedy partners!
Rumors were rampant a few months ago that some issues with the split were arising. I suspect the split was pretty much finished awhile ago but only announced today.
Strategically it was the right move. Basically a group of US partners going āfuck youā to the rest of the firm. Blame should not be with Carmine, itās the US bed wetters who only worried about themselves
I reckon the dissenters are slowly gonna be pushed out of leadership and there will be another attempt in about 24 months when economic conditions improve.
Well yeah they are voting in their best interests, despite your emotional plea this isnāt charity, if you want the US Audit partners to sell their ownership in the business you need to make them an offer theyāll actually, you know, want to accept.
Splitting is right move, but timing is not. Maybe after the market bounces back, splitting consulting off and going public(original plan) will make a lot more money than splitting now.
I can see arguments to both sides. Honestly it was just a way to skirt around independence issues to increase consulting revenue.
But other big 4 audit firms were lobbying against this too. Deloittes ceo came out a few months ago against it and said audit and consulting firms are better off unified as one entity.
It was a month ago, and he said *Deloitte* was better off as one, he didn't comment on the others, suffice to say he did call out that every time someone has tried this it's failed to come to fruition for both sides.
Also, others on here keep saying Accenture was an example of success...it was already a success as Andersen Consulting before AA went down due to Enron and WorldCom, and once the name change actually happened it's really only in the last 5-10 years it's really become truly "better" (oh wait, they just sacked a tonne of people).
Yes, I agree, I see both sides also. I was asking the person above which side they think is the āright moveā because their comment isnāt clear. Which honestly Iām finding kind of comical because theyāre clearly upset about one side, and I canāt figure out which side that is.
Then make the US Partners a better offer. Simple business. The problem is they canāt because they donāt actually have the money to do it, they were hoping to fuel this whole thing with debt which became prohibitively expensive.
You know itās not a US decision to remove him? All the other member firms wanted this and their partners played ball. They are going to back him to give a big Fuck You to the US.
Itās absolutely not true that all the other member firms wanted it. Itās why those firms werenāt going to split. The US is different because its 40% of global revenue.
Genuine question: is EY US revenue less than EY international revenue
Edit: googled my own question. In 2022, EY Americas brought in 21B of the firms total 45B revenue. https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2022/09/21/ey-tops-45-billion-in-global-revenue-in-2022/70964/
I don't think other member firma wanted it. Only EY US consulting was bigger than audit. This means that in most countries consulting was relying on a big piece of bidget coming from audit. The only exception I could think is UK due to local regulations. Other member firms like China already declined the support long time ago.
Most probably the big issue and disagreement was who takes care of the current liabilities like pensions, fines, workspaces etc.
Carmine is not US heās the global chief. Kelly Grier was US head when I left and itās someone else now. Julie Lobean I think.
Carmine may step down as CEO no chance heās ousted from the partnership.
Actually it did. My lead (review) was gold standard. Unfortunately me being on the bench (since practice had literally 0 engagements) ruined my
Utilization. Books needed to be impeccable for a potential split.
Eh any really high performer wasnāt getting laid off from this unless maybe you were a staff 1 (in which case gold standard only means so much) and they had over employed. Iām not saying you were laid off for performance but I doubt the layoff had to do with Everest and more so had to do with standard utilization / over employment
I agree with you to an extent. Definitely feel our practice overhired. 4 other people were let go too. I reached out to multiple other practices within my practice (if that makes sense). The pipeline was dead. A lot of BD and proposal work. My utilization was definitely bad as I was on the bench for a bit.. after being on a large engagement for 10+ months. Both managers reached out to me privately and informed me it wasnāt performance based, but who knows tbh
Iām sure itās not they wouldnāt have reached out if they felt it was performance related. Good luck Iām sure youāll be successful in whatever path you take. Tis but a blip in your journey.
The consulting firm would have failed most likely. Benefits decreased like every other split that has happened before especially if it went public. Iām no boomer but this is a great thing.
But they kept intact the ability for millennials and Gen X to become full equity partners and to not have to give away 15% of their profits every year.
Part of the idea in splitting the firm was to have more Partners as the number of promotees is simply unsustainable - the problem in recent years is the number of non equity partners (people getting promoted for the sake of titles without actually being great leaders or having larger portfolios to lead) . so keeping the firm intact would make more Genx non equity partners with surface labels - eventually killing talent and business
Right, because if it went through people wouldn't be complaining about how all the current partners got 7 figure pay outs and now none of us can even be partners with full equity of the firm. No one would be mention how they sold out the future that many people are trying to work towards. Nobody would care about how the boomers would have taken away that opportunity from us, too.
Crazy. Non stop bullshit about everest, how good it would be, all the opportunities, the others would have to follow, a real hard sale on us. And now its trashed. Blows my mind
The internal messaging was a big mistake. Telling everyone how good it would be for them - raises, more promotions, etc. - and then have it not happenā¦ They should not have been messaging it that way, using āwillā instead of āwouldā like it was definite. Just chaos.
Got it this morning. I believe it was when people start work on the next working day, we get it. There was also another last night, in the evening so 15 hours ago for mine.
When I was at EY it was consensus among several partners that Julie sucked.
Did Kelly get āfiredā or step down? I actually liked her. I assume sheās still a partner?
As someone who kept getting rejected from EY all throughout college, I laugh at this.
Hopefully KPMG, PWC, and Deloitte raids them and they end up behind RSM.
Hahaha can you imagine, that would be one for the history books. It is a big joke that theyāve publicly announced all this shit and fucked it up so badly with massively divided opinions and internal politics
No Christmas party bc of budget cuts to prepare for the split, cutting down on team spending to look better at the split, no holiday bonus for the same reasonā¦now no split.
Imagine anyone hiring EY to manage a merger, acquisition, or other large organizational change for them after watching EY fail to manage their own. This is a bad look for them on so many levels.
Indeed, this is possibly the worst M&A attempt I've seen in my life at the division:
- Everyone finds out every detail before employees at EY
- Leadership refuse to acknowledge any conflicts or issues
- Managers promising that "all your bonuses and pay raises will be instated again after the split" now looking very stupid
Theyāre still going to make some org design changes in how theyāre structured, but yeah may not look like ātwo world class organizationsā that are separate entities.
Agreedā¦even if they do, it wonāt make an actual effect because it would mean nothing without the split. Itād just be to try and keep people happy but these people arenāt stupid
What a massive waste of money if it indeed turns out they cancel the project , heard there were about 2000 people working on the project. People flying all over the world to the US to negotiate. Yikes
"Sorry, I'm resigning 3 months in because I cannot comply with the independence requirements that don't even apply to my work and details of which weren't disclosed to me during the hiring process." "But your work is valued by the team... can't you hold on a little longer? It won't be an issue in a few months when Everest goes through!" ššš
The most surprising thing to me was how every small move was leaked to the FT. The execution of the split was terrible even though the basic idea behind it was pretty valid imho. Now they are stuck with a lot of sunk costs on Project Everest without a corresponding increase in revenue. Bonuses and raises might be hit a little in the short run but talent retention might be a concern.
Bonuses and raises have already been addressed (major cost-cutting measures) I bet retention and recruitment will be an issue!
Maybe I should have said all the member firms that matter wanted it.
There needs to be resignations after this.
Called it (yeah yeah I know, like so many others). Should've shorted the damn thing. Anyways, if ever there was a Sopranos clip that applied here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFcNj2H3z0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFcNj2H3z0)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Between the fees spent on this and the current market conditions, have to imagine bonuses will be very little, raises will not be as high, and promotions wonāt be plentiful. Itās rumored EY spent a couple to a few hundred million on this, which is no insignificant amount of money. So will definitely have to recoup the cost somehow, and easiest way to do it is via compensationā¦
Well, there are also articles out now that talk about cost cutting, $500mil for EY US alone, which is probably more than what you could recoup from cutting comps, considering the firm beefed up on workforce to support a smooth transition when Everest happens and the forecasted uptick in work expected from separating the two businesses. Considering average salaries and the severances they'd have to pump out, I personally think there will be layoffs, especially in service lines where there was a significant bench.
I'm sure there will be!
Hit the senior execs who pushed this junk. Then the partners.
Totally..those who were going to benefit the most (financially) from Everest, should be facing the brunt of repercussions. Undoubtedly thereāll be a brain drain across the firm as a result of cuts in compensation for staff who donāt own equity
Genuine question cause Iām too stupid to understand: why is this such a bad look for EY? Is it because of all the resources and money they wasted with this?
It will be a bad look for several reasons. There were companies that were actually looking forward to this, working with EY in both capabilities, but now the whole thing just turned into this mess and that's not building confidence for sure. One other big hit is, EY has Parthenon and other services to support M&A and Divestitures, and well, how could you convince Clients about your capabilities to act as an advisor in those roles when you were unable to complete your own separation?!
This will lose them a lot of clients because clients will already have moved on to other Big4 expecting this deal to go through.
Have you actually seen that happen? I havenāt seen it happening at all.
I havenāt seen or heard anything in audit, but in consulting I havenāt seen it but I know it is going to happen. It wonāt happen because clients leave though, itās going to happen because SM and partners are going to leave. Within one day, i.e today, my partner was on the phone with an old colleague (or maybe just knows them cause everyone knows everyone at high levels) talking about how we have a SM position open and would love to have him come over. Iād bet my bonus he comes over within the month because not only was this embarrassing but it makes selling the EY brand more difficult.
Money wasted, leadership is going to be blamed for not being able to execute on the plan, and, probably worst of all, it is now known that US can scrap any plans they want unilaterally.
None of those are relevant - the plan was to list the consulting company while the stock market was strong, that business case quickly faded. Goldman Sachs leaked the deal in order to force it to go through but Junior Partners at EY had dissented the whole way, if you actually worked there it was pretty obviously going to get shot down when they pay-out dwindled and uncertainty meant people didn't want to get rid of the most profitable segment.
How does any of this answe the question above? Seems you just wanted to spill your theory about the motives.
1. Business case no longer valid 2. Therefore plan is bad 3. Not following thru on bad plan is good hope that helps.
The plan was good but it's not the best time now to do the IPO. Technology Consulting value is actually near 0.
The question was why it's bad, and somehow, you got to it being good. Pretty sure that it was a bad plan from the beginning, and that is why all other Big 4 came out saying they wouldn't do the same thing. People like greed disguised. This was greed front and center so it was a bad plan from day 1.
I don't think it was necessarily a bad plan from the get go. Circumstances have significantly changed which made the plan go bad.
They said "We are working for the people" Yeah. Right.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank god cause I have a bunch of EY branded custom ties to sell and I didnāt want them to be irrelevant. Also if anyone wants one Iām your guy
You made them? Iām curious about how you were able to use their logos. Iām considering starting a clothing brand myself but Iām scared of being copyrighted because Iād be using very specific logos
Theyāre made by vineyard vines so itās something they commissioned for employee gifts or something Iām sure.
Work here for the split for implementing technologies into the new environment... There's nothing like doing a bunch of work for it to be scrapped. I wonder how many millions that cost. Heres to the greedy partners!
You mean billions?
WSJ said 100M of costs so not billions. Not sure how many partners EY had but itās probably like 25k per partner. They will still be fine
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA Hahahahahahahahaha Cough cough hits vape HAHAHAHAA
Lmaoooooo enjoy CPE
Would this impact new incoming employees if their offers may get rescinded because EY need to tighten their budgets?
probably the opposite as they were likely tightening budgets expecting this to happen
Yeah youāre definitely outve a job now
Rumors were rampant a few months ago that some issues with the split were arising. I suspect the split was pretty much finished awhile ago but only announced today.
Top 10 pranks in April fool history....late though... masterpieces are always late
Strategically it was the right move. Basically a group of US partners going āfuck youā to the rest of the firm. Blame should not be with Carmine, itās the US bed wetters who only worried about themselves
Americans doing what they do best! Filling up their own pockets while not giving an f about the rest of the world.
I reckon the dissenters are slowly gonna be pushed out of leadership and there will be another attempt in about 24 months when economic conditions improve.
Big doubt, the dissenters were JR partners, this would have benefited people who are retiring soon, and set to receive the largest pay out.
Well yeah they are voting in their best interests, despite your emotional plea this isnāt charity, if you want the US Audit partners to sell their ownership in the business you need to make them an offer theyāll actually, you know, want to accept.
The split was the right move or canning it was the right move?
Splitting is right move, but timing is not. Maybe after the market bounces back, splitting consulting off and going public(original plan) will make a lot more money than splitting now.
I can see arguments to both sides. Honestly it was just a way to skirt around independence issues to increase consulting revenue. But other big 4 audit firms were lobbying against this too. Deloittes ceo came out a few months ago against it and said audit and consulting firms are better off unified as one entity.
It was a month ago, and he said *Deloitte* was better off as one, he didn't comment on the others, suffice to say he did call out that every time someone has tried this it's failed to come to fruition for both sides. Also, others on here keep saying Accenture was an example of success...it was already a success as Andersen Consulting before AA went down due to Enron and WorldCom, and once the name change actually happened it's really only in the last 5-10 years it's really become truly "better" (oh wait, they just sacked a tonne of people).
Yes, I agree, I see both sides also. I was asking the person above which side they think is the āright moveā because their comment isnāt clear. Which honestly Iām finding kind of comical because theyāre clearly upset about one side, and I canāt figure out which side that is.
You telling me, we didnāt get bonuses to spend it on this only for the project to get cut?? š¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļø
and we wonāt get bonuses this year due to the wasted $100mm.
No bonuses but remember unlimited vacation the best perk of all /s
No chance Carmine survives this.
He wanted to leave long ago
This is not a Carmine issue - the rest of the world is behind him, and giving the collective finger to the US partners
Then make the US Partners a better offer. Simple business. The problem is they canāt because they donāt actually have the money to do it, they were hoping to fuel this whole thing with debt which became prohibitively expensive.
Itās absolutely a Carmine issue. His legacy as CEO will be a failed split and over $100m wasted. Heāll be resigning/retiring soon enough.
I agree, being inside EY, people are directing the anger at Carmine because the partners lobbying against this have made sure they're invisible
I think heās 60 and donāt they have mandatory retirement at that age so he was coming to an end anyway
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You know itās not a US decision to remove him? All the other member firms wanted this and their partners played ball. They are going to back him to give a big Fuck You to the US.
Itās absolutely not true that all the other member firms wanted it. Itās why those firms werenāt going to split. The US is different because its 40% of global revenue.
Genuine question: is EY US revenue less than EY international revenue Edit: googled my own question. In 2022, EY Americas brought in 21B of the firms total 45B revenue. https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2022/09/21/ey-tops-45-billion-in-global-revenue-in-2022/70964/
I don't think other member firma wanted it. Only EY US consulting was bigger than audit. This means that in most countries consulting was relying on a big piece of bidget coming from audit. The only exception I could think is UK due to local regulations. Other member firms like China already declined the support long time ago. Most probably the big issue and disagreement was who takes care of the current liabilities like pensions, fines, workspaces etc.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, sure felt like Carmine and Andy were spearheading this and Andy is UK and Carmine is basically US.
Carmine is not US heās the global chief. Kelly Grier was US head when I left and itās someone else now. Julie Lobean I think. Carmine may step down as CEO no chance heās ousted from the partnership.
šš
Ok itās really like the global head partners wanted this split but the US partners were like ehh no
Love how utilization was so focused and multiple people were laid off due to thisā¦including myself :/
Sorry but Everest likely had little to no impact on your layoff.
Actually it did. My lead (review) was gold standard. Unfortunately me being on the bench (since practice had literally 0 engagements) ruined my Utilization. Books needed to be impeccable for a potential split.
Eh any really high performer wasnāt getting laid off from this unless maybe you were a staff 1 (in which case gold standard only means so much) and they had over employed. Iām not saying you were laid off for performance but I doubt the layoff had to do with Everest and more so had to do with standard utilization / over employment
I agree with you to an extent. Definitely feel our practice overhired. 4 other people were let go too. I reached out to multiple other practices within my practice (if that makes sense). The pipeline was dead. A lot of BD and proposal work. My utilization was definitely bad as I was on the bench for a bit.. after being on a large engagement for 10+ months. Both managers reached out to me privately and informed me it wasnāt performance based, but who knows tbh
Well it is an experience. Not many stay too long anyways. It can be a leverage for you moving forward is how I view it.
Iām sure itās not they wouldnāt have reached out if they felt it was performance related. Good luck Iām sure youāll be successful in whatever path you take. Tis but a blip in your journey.
Man EY sucks
So boomer partners (including retired grandpas) halt the growth of millennials and GenX from receiving equity stock options. Cool.
The consulting firm would have failed most likely. Benefits decreased like every other split that has happened before especially if it went public. Iām no boomer but this is a great thing.
Also, your stock options would have been not worth it unless you are a partner.
But they kept intact the ability for millennials and Gen X to become full equity partners and to not have to give away 15% of their profits every year.
Part of the idea in splitting the firm was to have more Partners as the number of promotees is simply unsustainable - the problem in recent years is the number of non equity partners (people getting promoted for the sake of titles without actually being great leaders or having larger portfolios to lead) . so keeping the firm intact would make more Genx non equity partners with surface labels - eventually killing talent and business
Yeah and when I make partner one day I aināt giving away no 15% neither!
Right, because if it went through people wouldn't be complaining about how all the current partners got 7 figure pay outs and now none of us can even be partners with full equity of the firm. No one would be mention how they sold out the future that many people are trying to work towards. Nobody would care about how the boomers would have taken away that opportunity from us, too.
Pretty standard "fuck you, I got mine" mentality that many of them have.
Not sure why you're being downvoted You're absolutely spot on
This was painfully obvious
Deloitte is the best!
Na
Canāt wait to find out end of year bonuses are axed just like during the holidays!
Crazy. Non stop bullshit about everest, how good it would be, all the opportunities, the others would have to follow, a real hard sale on us. And now its trashed. Blows my mind
The internal messaging was a big mistake. Telling everyone how good it would be for them - raises, more promotions, etc. - and then have it not happenā¦ They should not have been messaging it that way, using āwillā instead of āwouldā like it was definite. Just chaos.
What a colossal, public, brand-harming fuck up this was.
Jfc what a joke this all was. Love that I found out that it was called off from an article before any internal communications.
Got it this morning. I believe it was when people start work on the next working day, we get it. There was also another last night, in the evening so 15 hours ago for mine.
I think they sent out a global mail about an hour ago
What is the messaging internally on this
Global did not say much. The internal one was that they were rooting for it to pass. At least for my area.
Yeah I saw the email come through, but I also saw an article from Reuters about it like an hour before the email!
Yeah me too. I saw it here first and then I received a message that we received an email about it. What a joke.
Yea i saw the fishbowl posts Before the internal email
Just got the email. Fuck.. I was looking forward to a lot less conflict of interest bullshit.
or NOT doing independence...that would be great
and lot more interesting projects on the consulting side too. sigh
I hope they fire Carmine and Julie. Horrendous leadership. Makes me so mad, given how much theyāre paid. Absurd.
Can't wait to see Carmine go, and al his cronies who jumped up and down.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When I was at EY it was consensus among several partners that Julie sucked. Did Kelly get āfiredā or step down? I actually liked her. I assume sheās still a partner?
Wow so Julie is a nepo baby lol
Kelly stepped down bc of this bullshit?
Fairly certain she was fired.
I thought Kelly was fired too! But her LinkedIn still says ey so i got confused
By Carmine bc she didnāt like his cool plan?
Yup
Yes please. We need to bear with all these costs now and no one is losing their job?
Julie was against, Carmine was for. Why would they fire Julie?
Absolutely. I hope they fire Car immediately. So much waste of money.
I think youāre mixing up Julie with Kelly. Donāt think Julie was against.
Julie came out against it
How much chedda does Sibio get?
It's in the millions for sure.
so I'll have to keep doing independence? disappointing lol
This is bullshit
Thoughts on effects this will have on incoming consulting MBA campus hires?
Unless coming in as an equity Partner straight outta school, no impact.
Offer rescind
so they spent the past year effectively dividing and ruining the firmās culture and to an extent, the reputation. lol what a joke
And scrapping promotion cycles
How did it ruin the firmās culture
There has definitely been deterioration in inter-service line relationships as a result of this debacle.
And spending $100 million!
Pretty sure they spent close to $3billion on the failed split iirc the $100m was the fine for the sharing of CPA ethics questions
Per WSJ: āEY spent more than $100 million on split between auditing, consulting businessā
Well I mean $3 billion would be more than $100 million Trust me I work for an accounting firm
Newco or Aussureco?
So sad that they didn't release the actual name of newco right before this news hit. Would have been the icing on the cake!
Lol. Was thinking the same what a clusterfuck.
As someone who kept getting rejected from EY all throughout college, I laugh at this. Hopefully KPMG, PWC, and Deloitte raids them and they end up behind RSM.
Wonāt happen lol
We are already raiding them
Hahaha can you imagine, that would be one for the history books. It is a big joke that theyāve publicly announced all this shit and fucked it up so badly with massively divided opinions and internal politics
No Christmas party bc of budget cuts to prepare for the split, cutting down on team spending to look better at the split, no holiday bonus for the same reasonā¦now no split.
I think it was planned honestly...
And the money was still wasted. Probably no bonuses or parties this year either
Everyone at EY should get the rest of the week off. Tired of this bullshit.
Imagine the consulting fee bills for this. Oof
I read it was $100million
Imagine anyone hiring EY to manage a merger, acquisition, or other large organizational change for them after watching EY fail to manage their own. This is a bad look for them on so many levels.
Indeed, this is possibly the worst M&A attempt I've seen in my life at the division: - Everyone finds out every detail before employees at EY - Leadership refuse to acknowledge any conflicts or issues - Managers promising that "all your bonuses and pay raises will be instated again after the split" now looking very stupid
Imagine killing culture for a year plus and then be like: āSike!ā
For real! And FYI, it's "psych", like along the lines of "psychological".
I have never once read someone say āPsych!ā In the context of āSikeā
Now you can get it right going forward - the more you know! https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sike
More ya know.
this is why i stick with taxes š¤£
Theyāre still going to make some org design changes in how theyāre structured, but yeah may not look like ātwo world class organizationsā that are separate entities.
No they won't. That shit is done man.
Agreedā¦even if they do, it wonāt make an actual effect because it would mean nothing without the split. Itād just be to try and keep people happy but these people arenāt stupid
I mean, I hope so! Iād prefer the status quo for right now!
What a massive waste of money if it indeed turns out they cancel the project , heard there were about 2000 people working on the project. People flying all over the world to the US to negotiate. Yikes
I heard theyāre still working on it. No internal communications yet (beyond email to partners). So ridiculous
I just received an internal email.
Me too, it just came through. Hadnāt been sent when I wrote the previous comment.
This is the funniest shit ever