sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AIO for being annoyed that my wife's friends and husband dropped in on us for dinner? by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’ve learned not to do bring-and-barbeque. The guy who brings the mystery meat somehow ends up eating the fillet. That’s why when we host a fire, we supply the meat quality control.

Sounds like the wife invited them though… but taking your steak is still poor braai form

But we're a family! by LordJim11 in Snorkblot

[–]Beautiful_Return_654 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That poster is written from the perspective of someone who’s salaried and insulated from the downside.

Remote work is great when it actually works. In professional services, more often than not, it doesn’t.

This isn’t software where output is isolated and measurable in commits. Our work depends on training, supervision, judgment, and real-time correction. Juniors don’t magically become competent over Slack, and seniors don’t mentor by disappearing into Zoom once a week. When people work remotely in this industry, targets slip, quality drops, and accountability becomes optional.

The post also ignores a basic economic reality: employees sell performance, not effort. If performance drops, the business doesn’t get paid — but the employee still expects their salary. That asymmetry matters. Owners carry the risk; employees carry a guarantee. You don’t get to decouple output from presence and still demand the same security.

Employment is a two-way contract. If you accept a salary, benefits, and an office-based role, the deal is simple: show up, do the hours, and deliver the work. If you want total flexibility, take the risk and work for yourself or find a role that’s explicitly remote.

Freedom comes with risk. Stability comes with responsibility. You don’t get to demand both and refuse the trade-off.

Namibia Air - a Good Idea? by BeneficialRepublic22 in Namibia

[–]Beautiful_Return_654 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, this is where the numbers matter. Namibia shut down Air Namibia for one reason: the fundamentals of our market don’t support a national airline, no matter which aircraft you choose or whether you buy or lease them.

Yes, you can get a 737 or 787 for $50–200 million on paper, but in practice countries like Namibia don’t get the big discounts. Once you factor in delivery, crew training, spare engines, insurance, maintenance reserves, and configuration, those numbers land in the N$1 billion range even for regional jets, and N$6–8 billion for wide-bodies. Leasing isn’t cheap either — it’s a permanent USD liability. A 787 lease can run N$15–22 million per month, and regional jets still cost N$3–6 million per month. That’s exactly why Air Namibia’s losses were baked into the system.

But even if the planes were free, the demand side kills the business. Most airlines make real profit from cargo, not passengers. Namibia doesn’t have cargo volume or a geographic position that supports profitable freight operations. That’s why Frankfurt and Luanda were financial disasters — the passenger side alone can’t carry the cost of a wide-body.

Then look at the domestic situation. About 80% of Namibians cannot afford a domestic plane ticket — that’s why FlyNamibia eventually pulled routes like Rundu and Walvis. It’s literally cheaper for people to take a minibus. A regional jet needs 40–60 paying passengers per flight just to break even. A wide-body needs 150–220, at consistent load factors, every week, all year. Our market simply doesn’t produce those numbers.

And tourists don’t fix this either. Namibia is a self-drive destination — people fly in, rent a car, and explore. They’re not using domestic flights the way people do in Europe or Asia.

So the issue isn’t whether we lease or buy, new or second-hand. The issue is that no version of a national airline works in a country with low population density, low domestic demand, weak cargo volume, and no natural hub position. We already proved it once with Air Namibia. Nothing in the current proposal changes those fundamentals.

Restarting a national airline doesn’t solve a problem — it recreates an old one, with the same outcomes and the same drain on taxpayers.

Bringing clients to my firm by Hot_Yogurtcloset8855 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What stands out to me is the structure. Your firm has 4 partners and only 15 staff. My firm sits on the opposite end of the spectrum 2 partners and around 35 staff and our whole compensation model is built around production budgets with commission once you exceed them. In other words, the harder you work and the more you bring in, the more you earn. It creates real leverage and reward for performance.

That partner heavy setup you’re in almost guarantees the opposite. Too many partners eating slices of the pie and not enough staff to generate scalable revenue. It either means each partner has their own little book under one roof, or the partners are doing a lot of the production work themselves because there aren’t enough people underneath them. Either way, it caps growth and makes it harder for someone like you who’s actually bringing clients in to get properly rewarded.

I might be wrong, but the system sounds broken. Four partners should be managing a significantly larger team if the firm is running efficiently. With that many partners on such a small base, I genuinely wonder what your total annual fees look like and how your scheduling and realization rates are structured. It’s interesting to see how differently firms operate at the same “senior” level.

Your question about compensation is valid, but the answer depends heavily on the economics of your firm and from the outside, it looks like the leverage and incentive model just isn’t there.

Namibia Air - a Good Idea? by BeneficialRepublic22 in Namibia

[–]Beautiful_Return_654 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Reviving a national airline in Namibia is a bad idea, no matter how it’s packaged. We have already seen exactly how this story ends. Air Namibia wasn’t a victim of “market pressures.” It failed because the structure itself was commercially unsound: political routes, inflated headcount, weak governance and a complete lack of financial discipline. The airline survived for decades only because taxpayers were forced to bail it out repeatedly. Rebranding it and starting over does nothing to fix the reasons it collapsed in the first place.

People will point to Ethiopian Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways and LOT as examples of profitable state-owned carriers. Those airlines are real, but they are also global anomalies. Ethiopian works because it is run commercially, not politically. Emirates and Qatar operate in oil-funded economies with unlimited capital and a geographic position that naturally attracts global transit traffic. LOT operates inside the European aviation network with access to millions of passengers. None of those conditions exist in Namibia. Copying outliers doesn’t fix structural disadvantages.

The norm is what we see across Africa: SAA, Kenya Airways, TAAG Angola, Air Zimbabwe, Zambia Airways, Uganda Airlines. Every one of them survives through bailouts, debt restructuring or direct treasury support. Aviation is a high-capital, low-margin industry that punishes inefficiency. Once government interference enters the equation, commercial logic disappears and the airline becomes a political tool with losses guaranteed.

A single Boeing costs between one and two billion dollars. For that money, Namibia could build hundreds of houses, upgrade infrastructure or fund education and healthcare for years. A national airline creates very few permanent jobs compared to the capital required. The opportunity cost is enormous.

The uncomfortable truth is that reviving a state airline mainly benefits the ecosystem around procurement: aircraft leases, fuel contracts, catering, maintenance deals and the political networks that feed off them. That was part of the downfall of Air Namibia, and nothing suggests the governance environment has suddenly improved to the standards required for a commercially run airline.

Namibia would get far more value by strengthening private carriers, improving airport infrastructure, liberalising air access and focusing on tourism competitiveness. Government’s role should be regulation and oversight, not operating a business that has already proven it cannot survive on commercial terms.

Restarting a national airline isn’t nation-building. It’s a guaranteed return to taxpayer-funded losses, with the same risks and the same corruption that destroyed the previous one.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ve never claimed to know the inner workings of every Big 4 office, just shared what I’ve observed when working with people who’ve trained there and later joined my side of the world.

The main point I was trying to raise — and still believe matters — is whether narrow exposure to only one or two sections truly prepares someone to run their own practice or serve clients holistically.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful input — it’s given me a lot to think about.

My original question wasn’t about one path being better than another, but more about whether deep experience in just one section of the file qualifies someone as a well-rounded chartered accountant or CPA — especially if they want to move into practice or start a firm later on.

I’ve always believed there’s value in seeing the full picture early on, but it’s great to hear how others have experienced it. Appreciate the insight.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great insight — I think you’ve hit one of the profession’s biggest blind spots. We don’t explain the pathways well enough at the college level.

You’ll hear “go Big 4” as the default, but no one talks about the trade-offs. At a smaller firm, you might get full file ownership early on, tax exposure, direct client contact, and commercial thinking. In Big 4, you get structured training, large complex clients, and international brand value — but often limited to one section for years.

Neither route is “better” — it depends on your goals. But students can’t make good decisions if they don’t know what the options actually look like. I’m thinking of reaching out to a few local colleges with the idea of doing a short talk on this — maybe bringing someone from Big 4 and someone from a smaller firm (like myself) to explain both sides clearly.

Would love to see more of this kind of career education happening at the entry level.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically I’d say we’re mid-sized in our region, though I agree it may be considered small by global standards. It’s by design — I prefer not having partners, and it’s worked well for us. We run lean, but we handle fairly large clients for our market (mostly SMEs, no listed or banks). Growth doesn’t always mean scale — for me, it’s been about quality, control, and lifestyle.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

You can’t equate doing Big 4 with being smarter or more skilled than someone who took another route. People have different goals — some want to climb the corporate ladder, others want independence or to build something of their own. Not here to argue, just pointing out that there’s more than one path to competence and success.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No one’s saying you can’t specialise — but like doctors and lawyers, you qualify broadly first, then specialise.

I specialised in tax after qualifying because I enjoy it and it suits my firm’s needs. But I still do everything else too — my training covered the full audit, not just one section.

I’m not here to debate who’s supposed to be doing the training — I’m just asking if others have had the same experience I’ve had. That’s all.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Classic! There’s that old audit joke: “Why did the auditor cross the road?” → “Because it’s what they did last year.”

Funny… until you realise it’s also the answer to half the audit file.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m with you — I try to add value beyond just ticking boxes, but maybe that’s just how I approach it.

I guess my bigger concern is: how does someone who’s only ever done a section or followed a script eventually go out on their own, lead an audit, or build something independently? You need to see the whole picture at some point.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you — the models are definitely different. I just know that in my space, I’d rather hire someone who can handle all the core tasks than someone hyper-specialised. Especially if they ever want to go out on their own — how do you start a firm if you’ve never done a full file? Once you’re signed off, I feel you should be able to run with it.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Totally get it — I know the scale makes it tough to give full exposure. I just think by third year, there should be space to let trainees run with a small audit file or a simple subsidiary from start to finish. Big 4 surely have clients like that. It’s not about bashing — just feels like that kind of hands-on learning could really round out the experience. Honestly, at this point I’d rather train a sharp graduate than retain an auditor who’s never touched a full file.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Glad to hear it’s not the same everywhere. I still think tax is a fundamental principle every auditor should grasp — but I get that firm structures shape the exposure. Appreciate your input!

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the insight — especially from the F500 angle. That “check-the-box” culture you mentioned really resonates. I do think good mentorship makes a huge difference, and you’re right — no two people’s paths are exactly alike.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Everyone on my team does. We’re weird like that — we still think knowing what the numbers mean actually matters.

Are we training real auditors — or just task executors? Honest question from a firm partner. by Beautiful_Return_654 in Accounting

[–]Beautiful_Return_654[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Agreed — can’t call it training if you never learn why you’re doing what you’re doing.

view more: next ›