Apparently what the client deem to be material is the threshold we should use for our materiality. To defend them, I guess it's understandable that our materiality would be so low at times, and small amounts to them could potentially be big numbers to us. But that's why we're much better off working with clients who had public accounting experience, and thus know what materiality means. No wonder public accountants are in such demand these days.
I'm trying to decide whether to audit financial services companies or non-financial services companies. What would you say are the pros and cons of either industries? Do individuals who choose non-FS have less career mobility within the firm or if they decide not to stay with the B4 after a few years? Really depends on what you'd like to do after (unless you really love auditing). If you want to a controller,etc. at a p/e firm or a hedge fund down the road, you'd want to go into financial services. The pay won't be too bad, especially if you get a share of the insane bonuses they dole out. If you want to audit industries with tangible products and want to get a better understanding of the operations of such businesses, then other industries are the way to go.In terms of mobility outside the firm, auditing other industries is the way to go since you have plenty of options when you exit the audit world. For example, in 2008, after Lehman collapsed, it was incredibly hard ...
Comments
Standard definition is the smallest amount that would influence an investor (or similar party's) decision on whether or not they should invest in a company.
Auditors determine it, never the client. How odd to hear that version!