2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nbest practices and key concepts<\/strong><\/p>\nas is the case with all of my lists, no one firm incorporates all<\/strong> of these practices in its partner compensation policy. but i have observed all<\/strong> of the practices below in one or more of the best firms i\u2019ve worked with over 20 years.<\/p>\n\nperformance-based. <\/strong>there should be a strong link between pay and performance. when it comes to cpa firm performance and profitability: as the partners go, so goes the firm. the partners have a much greater impact on the firm\u2019s success than professional staff and other personnel. if they perform at a high level, the firm will do the same. if partner performance lags, then the firm will suffer. therefore, the firm needs to motivate the partners to produce at high levels and reward them accordingly. compensation isn\u2019t the best way to motivate anyone\u2019s performance, but it is<\/strong> effective. \n<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/p>\n
\nbusiness getting. <\/strong>bringing in business must be a major factor in allocating partner income. business development is the most important aspect of partner performance that is also the most difficult<\/strong>. the majority of cpa firm partners are not highly skilled in business development. it doesn\u2019t come naturally to them. to be successful at bringing in business and contributing to the firm\u2019s revenue growth, most partners need to go outside their comfort zones. these efforts must be handsomely rewarded if firms expect their partners to make the extra effort to bring in business.<\/li>\nmost important partner performance factors. <\/strong>these are easily the biggest factors among many:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\nbringing in business<\/li>\n managing the firm<\/li>\n providing world-class service to clients<\/li>\n managing a large client base<\/li>\n retaining clients and moving them upscale<\/li>\n helping staff learn and grow; mentoring them<\/li>\n intangible areas such as teamwork and loyalty<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\nmultitier compensation systems. <\/strong>most firms adopt two or three tiers of income:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\nreturn on capital. this tier separates partners\u2019 roles as shareholders and producers. the core philosophy here is that shareholders have money invested in the firm and are entitled to a return on their investment. at most firms, this tier is 2-10 percent of total partner income.<\/li>\n base salary. this represents what each partner brings to the table every day. the base is primarily based on cumulative, historical performance, reflecting each partner\u2019s street value. at virtually all firms, this is by far the largest tier, usually 60-90 percent of total partner income.<\/li>\n bonus. this rewards unusually good performance in the current year. whereas the base is a partner\u2019s street value, based a great deal on historical performance, the bonus is \u201cwhat have you done for the firm lately (this year)?\u201d at most firms, the bonus is 10-30 percent of total partner income. firms treat the bonus in two distinctly different ways:\n\nthe base is independent<\/strong> from the bonus.<\/li>\nthe base is really a draw on a final income number; the bonus trues up the base to the final income number for each partner.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\nmethod for allocating income. <\/strong>firms use several methods to allocate income<\/strong>. the two most common are these:\n\ncompensation committee. this panel of a small number of partners subjectively analyzes each partner\u2019s performance and links the performance to pay. this is the most common system by far at firms with eight or more partners. it\u2019s considered the cadillac of all partner compensation systems because it\u2019s the best system for recognizing the critical importance of both<\/strong> production and intangible factors and it entrusts the income allocation process to a panel of judges that the partners trust to exercise good judgment and fairness in their deliberations.<\/li>\nthe firm develops an algebraic formula for computing each partner\u2019s income. the main factors are production-related: finding (originating clients), minding (managing client engagements and relationships) and grinding (billable hours). every formula must adopt a method of weighting the various production factors. formulas are notoriously flawed for ignoring critically important intangible performance factors. they are most commonly used at firms with five or fewer partners.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n goal setting. <\/strong>there should be a link between pay and the extent to which partners meet their expectations. one of the best ways to measure this is with formal, written goal setting.<\/li>\ndifferentiation between management and administration. management<\/strong> is deciding what the firm should be and implementing. it\u2019s leading. it\u2019s holding others accountable for their performance and behavior. administration<\/strong> focuses on the day-to-day running of the firm. it monitors results, operates systems and supports practice personnel. both are important, but management is much more valuable than administration. most firms avoid paying partner-level compensation to do administrative work when the latter can be performed \u2013 usually more effectively \u2013 by someone earning a fraction of a partner\u2019s income.<\/li>\nteamwork.<\/strong> firms perform best when their partners work together as a team. they collaborate on clients. from time to time, clients are transferred from one partner to another when it\u2019s in the best interest of the firm.<\/li>\noriginated book vs. inherited book. <\/strong>it goes without saying that bringing in business is a critical performance factor. managing client engagements and relationships is also very important, including situations where partners inherit clients that they did not originate (a partner retires or otherwise leaves the firm, new partners are assigned clients he or she worked on, etc.) in compensating partners, when a weight is assigned to managing clients, originated book should always be compensated more than inherited book.<\/li>\npartner evaluations.<\/strong> there is a common myth among both partner candidates and partners themselves that once people become partners, they no longer need performance evaluations. better firms say hogwash to this. the purpose of partner evaluations is to improve performance; partners need to improve their performance, just like staff. partner evaluations should be used as a factor in allocating partner income.<\/li>\npartner accountability. <\/strong>there are several ways to hold partners accountable for their performance and behavior. compensation is probably the most commonly used accountability measure in cpa firms, though it is not always the best.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nseven systems used to allocate partner income<\/strong><\/p>\nthe following chart shows the kinds of systems that firms across the country are using. the information is from a recent edition of the rosenberg map survey.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n\n\nsystem<\/strong><\/td>\n2 partners <\/strong><\/td>\n3-4 partners <\/strong><\/td>\n5-7 partners <\/strong><\/td>\n8-12 partners <\/strong><\/td>\n13 + partners <\/strong><\/td>\nall \nfirms<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\ncomp committee<\/td>\n 6%<\/td>\n 12%<\/td>\n 33%<\/td>\n 57%<\/td>\n 78%<\/td>\n 33%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nformula<\/td>\n 30%<\/td>\n 33%<\/td>\n 31%<\/td>\n 18%<\/td>\n 16%<\/td>\n 27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \npaper & pencil<\/td>\n 3%<\/td>\n 2%<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n 2%<\/td>\n 0%<\/td>\n 3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nownership percentage<\/td>\n 6%<\/td>\n 4%<\/td>\n 7%<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n 3%<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nmp decides<\/td>\n 15%<\/td>\n 17%<\/td>\n 9%<\/td>\n 13%<\/td>\n 3%<\/td>\n 12%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \npay equal<\/td>\n 27%<\/td>\n 6%<\/td>\n 0%<\/td>\n 2%<\/td>\n 0%<\/td>\n 5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nall partners decide<\/td>\n 12%<\/td>\n 26%<\/td>\n 14%<\/td>\n 3%<\/td>\n 0%<\/td>\n 14%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n
observations that can be drawn from the chart:<\/p>\n
\nthe compensation committee method is clearly the choice at the larger firm levels.<\/li>\n the formula is the most commonly used system at the smaller firm sizes. one reason for this is that the firm doesn\u2019t have enough partners to justify using a compensation committee.<\/li>\n using ownership percentage to allocate partner income is not very common because it is inherently unfair: only through a quirk of fate will partners\u2019 ownership percentages be in line with their relative levels of performance.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nif your firm uses a formula, new partners will likely not fit into your system because most new partners have not built up their client base and other production metrics sufficiently to result in a reasonable compensation under the firm’s formula. in many cases, trying to fit new partners into an existing partner compensation formula will result in reducing their salaries, which of course is unfair and inappropriate.<\/p>\n
to address this dilemma, most firms continue to determine the new partners’ compensation the same way as when they were managers. this means the compensation amount of new partners needs to be carved out of the formula system.<\/p>\n
what promotion raise should new partners receive?<\/strong><\/p>\nthe key concept is this: new partners should not receive a compensation windfall. they should receive an increase in pay that is<\/p>\n
\na reasonable or even slightly generous promotion raise because it is<\/strong> a big promotion<\/li>\nsufficient to put their take-home pay higher than during their last year as a manager<\/li>\n recognition of what they are contributing to the firm’s growth, profitability and success<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nmost new partners receive an increase in the range of 10-15 percent. firms find this is adequate to address the three issues above.<\/p>\n
one final suggestion: many firms i have worked with have a policy of erring on the side of being overly generous to new partners in their first few years as a partner. the objective is to get them up to a “healthy” compensation level relatively quickly. this practice is much more common at firms with well above average profitability levels because they make more money and can afford<\/strong> to be generous. it goes a long way toward making new partners feel better about their minority roles in the firm and more comfortable taking on the retirement obligations to come.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"bonus: seven systems to allocate income … and who uses them.<\/strong> \n <\/a> \nby marc rosenberg<\/i> \nhow to bring in new partners<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1339,"featured_media":112142,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2374,3120,3002,2266],"tags":[2429,572,38,1416],"class_list":["post-113261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-pay-compensation","category-pro-member-exclusive","category-special","category-partner","tag-earnings","tag-pay","tag-salary","tag-wages"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n11 best practices for partner compensation - 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n