I work in software now, but I was an accounting major, CPA, and worked in Public Accounting for 4 years before making the switch.
Accounting actually is more of a trade, and I felt like the majority of classes they taught helped me on-the-job as an accountant. People who like systems engineering would enjoy accounting, because it's getting to the nuts-and-bolts of our financial system and understanding both the how and the why. Whether you're international conglomerate Apple, Inc or software engineer calderarrow working a day job, the laws of accounting still apply.
But I would not recommend paying more than you need to for an Accounting Degree. The Big 4 will recruit anyone from anywhere, and as long as you have a degree (which is usually required for the CPA License) and a 3.3+ GPA, you can get a job in any major city. Assets + Liabilities = Equity whether you're at community college or Harvard, so get the cheapest degree you can get.
Also, try to squeeze 150 credits into your undergrad curiculum, as some CPA licenses require 150 credit hours. This is typically 4 years of undergrad (120) + 1 year of a master's (30). The added cost of tuition for those classes isn't that much, but being able to get out and start working a year sooner is a ~$60k decision that is worth it if you can do it.
As for why I left accounting: I started learning Python to help me automate some of the boring parts of my job [0] and fell in love with software. It just clicked for me in the same way that accounting did, and now I work in fintech, where I'm able to blend the two.
I used to be, for most of the same reasons as you. What ultimately convinced me was realizing that our judicial system can never be 100% perfect, so we would always have a non-zero number of innocent people executed as long as capital punishment is on the table. To me, I think the cost of keeping people incarcerated is worth the cost of accidentally executing innocent citizens.
Put a bit more personally: would you support capital punishment if you had to pull the trigger, and you would be killed if you executed an innocent inmate? Most people I speak with would be fine pulling the trigger, but no one I’ve talked with would be okay with taking responsibility for mistakes.
I used to think that false convictions were rare. In capital cases like this one it is close to 4%! That made me think, is it worth killing 4 innocent people to avoid having to imprison 96 guilty ones for the rest of their life? If I went out with a gun and killed 100 people, 4 innocent and 96 justifiably, I may as well be number 97.
I'm curious what percentage of false convictions are caused by LEO and DA omitting or destroying evidence.
I suspect, ignorantly, that it's north of 70%. If anyone should be getting the death penalty, it should be those that abuse power granted to them by the people.
I guess false confessions are a huge issue. In addition, our system is mostly designed to around the needs of the rich and corporate interests. Prosecution for crimes against the poor and disenfranchised is critically underfunded. Public defenders offices are even worse off.
Assume the justice system is perfect and only guilty people are executed. However, by law for every five or ten guilty executions, a random innocent civilian is also executed.
That system is obviously abhorrent and unjust. However, that's how the system works right now. For every N truly guilty people executed, there's a truly innocent person executed. The only difference is we justify it by calling that person guilty even if they aren't.
This is true of any punishment, though: if we want to hold people in prison, we're going to have innocent people in there too. Why draw the line specifically at "death"?
With capital punishment, we remove the possibility of fixing our mistake if someone is innocent. But if we lock someone up for 30 years, they have the opportunity for justice to be served, and we have mechanics to _try_ to make it right.
Right? Like if you run with the argument that people are making then we can't give people a life sentence because they may die in jail when they're innocent.
So, it's better to potentially completely ruin the life of an innocent instead of killing him.
From a humanity standpoint the first option is much more barbaric.
Besides, what is the chance an innocent gets out if he was convicted in the first place?
I believe it's so low that the mistake is not giving a decent out (and avoiding large costs to society) to problematic peoples on the off chance that you might get an innocent released 10 years earlier.
If he was truly innocent, his life is ruined already, he would have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life...
i think you missed my last line. That should answer your question. The government can never be perfect, and killing and innocent is a tragedy. However, you cannot cripple the whole system for this vanishgly small chance or you have an equal chance of success across the system. If you keep making those compromises, putting systems in place to correct the errors of past systems; it quickly becomes a losing game. Put more simply, If you lose trust in the system, you can't rely on the system to fix it.
This argument always falls flat because those that claim state-sanctioned killing of innocent citizens is a necessary tragedy, never seem to say that they’d be willing to be murdered themselves in that scenario. It’s more like “Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
So why not just select random citizens by lottery and publicly execute one for every 50 or 100 convicts executed?
You're willing to accept that if the random citizen is labeled as guilty even if they're not. If it's acceptable for innocent people to be executed, what's the difference in having a random death lottery?
That's the whole point of the system is it not? We accept that there is a vanishigly small chance that a innocent person may be locked up and imprisoned. The point i was making is that we are already making that choice by the allowance of jails and prisons. So if we accept that, the sentencing does not matter. They were proven guilty in the court of law. There is a handful of studies, i'm sure someone could pull up about such cases where people on death row were found innocent after 20 years. However, those are exceptions and 99.99% of cases are not that way and are mostly because we "discovered" dna evidence as a thing.
It's death by a million cuts as soon as you start second guessing the system and trying to use the same system to fix it's inherent imperfections. Proven guilty by the court of law needs to mean something.
I think put yourself in the shoes of someone about to be executed innocent of their crime. Then make your argument. It sounds like “some of you die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make” otherwise.
Perhaps I misunderstood it, but I read that as you not finding the value of avoiding accidental executions as worth the cost to avoid them. And if so, then I think that’s a perfectly valid position. But it’s subjective, since others may find the value worth it.
I’m curious though: is there an error rate where you would feel like capital punishment would be off the table? For instance, if 90% of people executed were innocent, would you still want it for the 10% who deserve it? I admit that if we had a 100% success rate, I would be open to capital punishment, so we may actually agree that there’s a threshold where the system shouldn’t be allowed to use that as a form of punishment, and only disagree about about the percentage.
Off-topic, but did anyone attend Johns Hopkins CTY camp as a kid? I did it for 9 straight summers, and while the name is a bit pretentious, it was one of the best experiences I had. I am curious if anyone is an alum, since the overlap of CTY and HN seems pretty unique atm.
I'm not trying to say that the US educational performance is great, just that it's not terrible. I think there's a lot of room for improvement, but there's a narrative that US schools are failing horribly and that just isn't true.
Wouldn't you agree that "failing" is relative? Given just how much money the US has, wouldn't you agree that we should expect better outcomes? Wouldn't it be a failure that despite our massive wealth, we are below OECD average in any subject?
Give that money to someone close to you who can hold you accountable — hell, I’ll do it if you need — but you’re going to be earning every dollar of that over the next year by counting calories. Here’s how:
It’s approximately 5000 calories per pound of weight that you want to lose. 30 pounds * 5000 calories = 150k calories to lose 30 pounds. That’s pretty close to $100k Pay yourself to count calories, $1 per calorie. Track everything. Every meal, every snack, everything you put into your body. Every week, add up the total calories consumed and subtract the total amount from your weekly “maintainence” calories. To calculate that, multiply your current body weight by 16 or 18, depending whether you exercised that day. For instance, if you weigh 200 pounds, you should eat about 3200-3600 calories daily to maintain that weight, closer to 3200 if you don’t exercise, 3600 if you do. Every week, pay yourself $1 for every calorie you burned, re-weigh yourself, and repeat.
No exercise needed, but that will definitely accelerate the process, but only so much. It took months to get you here, so expect to spend months to get you out.
I was going to make a separate post about this in a few days once I finished up the documentation, but I'll post it early even though the Github repo is not in a completed state. The general idea is to build a tool that can scrape bank account information whenever it is executed, to enable more transparency when shopping for financial products like savings accounts. I've started working on the engine and templates, and currently have the logic built out for several hundred products at ~70 financial institutions.
The best way you can help is by creating "templates" of various product information by recording or manually writing puppeteer/playwright scripts to extract specific information about various bank products. This is a simple task, but due to each bank having multiple product offerings (checking, savings, money market, certificate of deposit) and multiple tiers of each product, the actual market for a "savings accounts" is in the tens of thousands. Banks change rates and fees a lot more frequently than they change their websites, so even though this is a brute-force method of aggregating data, it will be sufficient for most consumers.
If you're interested in learning more, shoot me an email: project.bankrank@gmail.com
I've been trying to understand the rationale of the court in simpler terms. Is this an adequate understanding of the reasoning:
1. Congress delegates some of its authority to issue/handle student loans to the executive branch via the US dept of education and some legislation passed in the past.
2. As President and leader of the executive branch, Biden wants to utilize the authority granted to him to modify the terms of the loans due to the impact of the COVID 19 national emergency. [0].
3. As part of his loan modifications, he wants to forgive a certain portion of the loans altogether, for which he was sued.
4. The Supreme Court ruled that the modifications of the loan forgiveness were ultimately unconstitutional due to the major questions doctrine, implying that while Congress may have delegated some authority to the executive branch for managing loans, outright forgiveness on such a scale would be considered economically significant, and therefore would be presumed not to be delegated. [1].
This is a step in the right direction, and personally I think that low-level deposit accounts are ripe for serious competition. There are thousands of banks and credit unions (~9,000 if memory serves) all offering the same risk-free product, but the rates and fees can be wildly different.
The FDIC publishes some decent statistics about average yields for various deposit products.[0] As of March 2023, the national average for savings accounts was 0.37%. The largest banks (Wells, BoA, Chase, Citi) offer 0.01% interest. That's 1 penny for every $100 you loan them.
That low rate made sense when the federal funds rate was low as an incentive for banks to borrow from consumers rather than the government. But now the rate is almost 20x more than it was a year ago, so there's a larger incentive for banks to borrow from consumers.[1] This should drive more competitive rates offered for consumer deposits.
If you're earning less than 1% APY on your checking and savings account and have $1000 in it, spend an hour researching an alternative. Going from 0.01% to 1% alone would earn you $10 more per year on that amount. If you have $10k, that's an extra $100 for maybe an hour of your time.
On a related note, I'm part of a team working on a service to monitor all the deposit rates across all financial institutions in the US in real time. If you're interested in learning more or signing up for the alpha launch (targeting Summer 2023), shoot us an email at bankrank.alpha@gmail.com
I was holding a considerable sum for several months while putting offers on a house. TD Bank started contacting me proactively to sell me awful 'wealth management' services as soon as the wire hit my bank account. I asked if they could give me a better savings rate than <1%. They declined. I went with a credit union that was offering ~5% APY introductory offers. I netted $10k in interest over several months by transferring away from a major bank. I highly recommend it.
There is a reason the other banks do not offer more: A great deal of that money is locked up in long term, low interest assets. What do you think will happen if people try to take their money elsewhere?
If people take their money elsewhere, the banks can borrow from the fed, just at a higher rate. So in theory, they should be willing to increase their rate up to whatever the fed-rate is, minus some margin for the risk of dealing with lower sums of deposits.
There's a direct correlation between advertising spend and interest yields on deposit accounts, which is somewhat interesting. It seems like the optimal business model is to focus more on customer acquisition than customer retention, because these products are very sticky. Churn rate for deposit accounts is like 8%, which is crazy given the rate variance.
Banks can not borrow from the Fed arbitrarily. If people take their money elsewhere en masse, the banks fail. That is what happened to SV bank, for the same reason. If anything, you can argue the Fed can save all the banks, which is true, but undesirable.
There is a good reason other banks do not offer more. Their customers aren't savvy enough to find a less well marketed consumer bank, so they don't have to pay more. That's called profit my friend.
+ Ability to invest in money market, treasury, or bonds directly from the account. And able to get someone on the phone to schedule recurring actions (e.g. ladders)
+ Decent "checking"-like features (ATM cash withdrawal with fee reimbursement, autopay, check deposit)
Essentially the only things it can't do are (1) Zelle & (2) deposit cash.
If those aren't needs you have, don't think there's a better solution with less effort.
Vanguard unfortunately got rid of its similar Advantage offering a few years ago. I hate now having two separate accounts at Vanguard—Cash Plus (essentially a high-yield savings account) and brokerage with sweep—yet neither offering checkwriting, when with Advantage I had sweep (with very competitive return) and checkwriting in one place.
Auditors have access to all the financials, but they only audit a statistically significant sample, because it would be incredibly expensive to audit every transaction.
Fraud can be easily detected if one employee is committing it. Fraud is substantially harder to find if two employees are involved, specifically 2 employees involved in internal controls.
For instance, if you have a policy that all checks paid over $10k require 2 signatures from corporate officers, it’s easy to catch a check with one officer forging the name of a second in order to siphon money to his 3rd party shell company.
But if both officers make a shell company, they can post the check as usual, and the check would pass auditor checks unless they looked into the specific corporation being paid, which may be out of scope if it’s a relatively small transaction.
Ultimately, you don’t need assurance that the financials don’t have fraud, you want assurance that they’re materially correct. Whether the company lost 10k to fraud or waste or incompetence is almost irrelevant for the investor, because the company has 10k less money. Obviously they’d prefer it not be due to fraud, but the impact on the financials is more or less the same.
Your comment was the first in this comment section where everything was coherent and on point. While everyone else is spitballing, you hit the nail on the head. I was not surprised at all that you revealed you’re a CPA because the accuracy of your comment perfectly conveys your credentials. Funny how things like that can come through.
Curious, this seems like a good place to deploy AI tooling. If I’m involved in internal controls, I’ll know what the auditors look for.
If an AI can augment the auditors to find more suspicious transactions such as to companies with no employees, or conflicts of interest - I could probably find more fraud.
Ex-IT Auditor and I agree. I was screaming for automation in the audit process for years and nobody would listen. Many of the employees are burnt-out and hate their jobs. My prediction is that governments will decide to audit companies using some kind of AI and report back any findings to shareholders, while ensuring correct taxes are paid. Big 4 has 5 years max to pivot their business or they're going to die.
> Ex-IT Auditor and I agree. I was screaming for automation in the audit process for years and nobody would listen.
Honestly, this seems like a lose-lose for decision makers:
- automation reduces billable hours, a net loss to the auditor
- automation finds more fraud, a net loss to the person who hired the good auditor
Of course, shareholders would appreciate less fraud, but have no seat at this particular table.
I’m very excited to see how technology impacts financial reporting in the future. We’re rapidly approaching a point where every single transaction could be audited in real time with software, and the details of each transaction automatically scrutinized.
"Excited" is one way of putting it. If we had any chance of this working or ending well, we wouldn't get daily or weekly posts here on HN of people having their Stripe/AWS/PayPal/Google accounts banned. Look forward to "Your company has been locked, please contact your auditor AI to get no help whatsoever"...
But that's the exact opposite to the economics of consulting esp at these big companies. The goal is to get as many low cost employees doing the most amount of high bill work as possible to make the most profit. Automation or ai would just lower what you can charge by removing 1000 hours per year of a college grad making 50-90k while charging at 500k a year for them. And you need these rates to cover for the highly paid sales leads and project leads as well as profits. You'd have no good way to pay your high bill rate applied scientist.
But why does cost not matter on the contract? A few reasons, one being is these are hourly contracts and the consultants know the customer has to finish the project. there will be more money. Second the customers are picking one of these companies on rep. If they fire the consultants they just rotate through the rest of the big five. There's no real incentive for the big five to change their model with customers who are making decisions based on who sponsors the golfer they like. Just like how every VC used svb, go with who you know.
This is why I left consulting. Every good shop gets wooed by the siren song of butts in seats economics. After consulting I've moved to where I sonetimes have to damage control projects from the big 5 and other high end large tech consultants on code. They're all doing the same thing if they get that big.
We had 2 recently with nationally renowned consultants where the provided heads couldn't use basic shell scripts or basic cloud cli, all at a senior DevOps bill rate. I ended up interviewing several of them and the only one of them id trust was their senior principal architect (5% time) who I'd put as a Jr/sr sysde/sde at our co. We fired the consultants. Luckily we only wasted money, our pm, and a few hours of my time.
Beware any company that competes with beer and insurance companies for commercial slots.
As a subject of some of those audots, and as being responsible for a subset of relevant processes, I can confirm. I'd just add that, at least under SOX audits, also the internal controls are audited. And if those controls are laclong, that is a, potentially major, audit finding as well.
Accounting actually is more of a trade, and I felt like the majority of classes they taught helped me on-the-job as an accountant. People who like systems engineering would enjoy accounting, because it's getting to the nuts-and-bolts of our financial system and understanding both the how and the why. Whether you're international conglomerate Apple, Inc or software engineer calderarrow working a day job, the laws of accounting still apply.
But I would not recommend paying more than you need to for an Accounting Degree. The Big 4 will recruit anyone from anywhere, and as long as you have a degree (which is usually required for the CPA License) and a 3.3+ GPA, you can get a job in any major city. Assets + Liabilities = Equity whether you're at community college or Harvard, so get the cheapest degree you can get.
Also, try to squeeze 150 credits into your undergrad curiculum, as some CPA licenses require 150 credit hours. This is typically 4 years of undergrad (120) + 1 year of a master's (30). The added cost of tuition for those classes isn't that much, but being able to get out and start working a year sooner is a ~$60k decision that is worth it if you can do it.
As for why I left accounting: I started learning Python to help me automate some of the boring parts of my job [0] and fell in love with software. It just clicked for me in the same way that accounting did, and now I work in fintech, where I'm able to blend the two.
[0] https://automatetheboringstuff.com/
reply