Related Posts
Any one working in BCG "gamma C" India team ?
Enthusiast
Additional Posts in Consulting
How is the social scene at Google Next?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
In general across the Big 4 they are similar but different. “Partners” are partners with equity (and some associated rights) who have a CPA. “Principals” are partners with equity (and some associated rights) how do it have a CPA. (Regulators don’t allow them to be called partners). MDs are partners without equity (and typically but not necessarily without voting rights or pension). MDs as a population skew junior vs partners but individual MDs may be very senior indeed
Partner = CPA, Principal = Sales driven, minor in implementation, Managing Director = Implementation driven, minor in sales ( still matters a lot)
Partner and Principal have share in the firm. They own it basically. MD is the highest level of employee.
Pride... depends on how you take it.
All that said, as an Associate, you should treat them all the same. From where you’re looking, there’s no difference
McKinsey nailed it (but think the statement was meant to say principals don’t have a CPA). That said, a “principal” are typically consulting partners or tax partners with a JD. So to answer your question about which is more lucrative, principals as they are typically consultants.
Why would one need a CPA as a management consultant to become a partner? Or do management consultants only become principals?
Think of it this way: A principal is a type of Partner. They sign the exact same agreement, they have the same voting rights, their shares have identical equity. The only thing they cannot do is sign off on financial statements, so as a control measure, the SEC will not allow them to be called Partners officially. At some firms they also cannot be the CEO, but that’s due to old bylaws and not due to regulations.
Which is the more prestigious?