Connect with us

Accounting

AI costs go beyond AI systems themselves

Published

on

Major accounting firms have been placing huge bets on artificial intelligence, having invested billions upon billions of dollars in the past few years alone. This is done with the understanding that AI will ultimately reduce expenses and drive profits. Yet, as always, it takes money to make money: fully realizing the potential of artificial intelligence can come with a hefty price tag, encompassing both short and long term expenses for not just the AI systems themselves but everything else that enables their effective use. 

The AI models themselves, of course, represent a significant R&D expense. Whether for internal efficiency, client engagements or both, building and training these models is no casual affair, requiring skilled specialists operating sophisticated software to create, something with which Doug Schrock, managing AI principal for top 25 firm Crowe, is well familiar. His own firm has spent a great deal of money developing custom AI solutions for things like tax and audit that are now used by staff every day, as well as Crow Mind, a gateway portal for all of the firm’s AI solutions. It has also devoted significant resources towards building bespoke AI solutions for clients, particularly in cases where they need something that simply does not exist in the market today. He compared it to making a custom Excel spreadsheet but far more complex. 

“It’s like you buy Excel. Here’s Excel. But you’ve got to configure it to your business case, so there’s a whole lot of customization to make the actual spreadsheet do what you need it to do. We see that a lot: you buy the suite, but you need a bespoke solution… Configuring the hardware, chaining together multiple agents to do the tasks, automating it, that takes work,” he said. 

AI money cost

Studio217 – stock.adobe.com

Chris Kouzios, chief information officer for top 50 firm Schellman, added that developing an AI system may appear to be a one-time spend at first, but considering things like maintenance, integrations and upgrades, each model can also represent an ongoing expense. 

“If you think of the initial build, you could call the initial build one time, although like any piece of software it will be continually approved over time, so I look at it from both perspectives,” he said. 

Big data, big costs

But the development costs of AI models are only one part of the overall expense. Just as significant, perhaps even more so, are the fees that come with hosting and accessing these models in the cloud. Running AI, especially generative AI, is very data intensive, which has served to accelerate cloud costs that have already been on the rise. Kouzios, from Schellman, noted that his own firm’s costs will likely rise apace with its AI infrastructure, especially as client services demand more use. 

“Your compute will go up at least exponentially over time and one of the things I think we’re going to see, and this is just future forecasting a little bit, I think clients will in general, not just in my space, be more comfortable when they feel they’ve got a little control over what they’re doing and what is done. In the cloud at the beginning people were terrified of putting their stuff there, we’ll see the same stuff with AI, we’ll probably have additional costs for spinning up instances for clients nervous about what goes where,” said Kouzios. 

Crowe’s Schrock reported similar things, noting that the major cloud hosting companies saw the opportunity for revenue generation via AI hosting and are already capitalizing on the situation, as evidenced in the fees they charge. The reality is that generative AI uses a lot of data, which means higher data costs from cloud providers who run the infrastructure it rests on. He talked about a recent meeting he had with Microsoft, a strategic partner with Crowe. 

“They’ve got 4 million servers across the US. They’re super interested in AI, not just because of Copilot but because we’ll be using Azure, using their server computing power to run the LLMs we write. They want to drive more Azure service dollars. So… we’ll be having more computing power costs for us through Azure,” he said. 

Accounting solutions vendors have noticed this too. Brian Diffin, chief technology officer for business solutions provider Wolters Kluwer, also noted that generative AI has indeed led to higher cloud costs, which has challenged the company to find ways to release AI-functional products in an economically sustainable way. 

“Gen AI is very CPU intensive, so one of the challenges we face—we’re doing a lot of experiments with this— is there’s so many approaches on how you would implement a gen AI based piece of functionality in software. We’re evaluating not just the LLMs in terms of what those capabilities would produce but what is going to be the cost of that feature when we go to production,” he said. 

Data shows that this is happening not just in the accounting space but across the economy as a whole. Recent reports from expense management solutions provider Tangoe has found that 92% of IT leaders report cloud spending on the rise, and that they mostly attribute AI (50%) and generative AI (49%) for this increase. Further, 72% of IT leaders feel these rising costs are becoming unmanageable. 

“GenAI is creating a cloud boom that will take IT expenditures to new heights,” said Chris Ortbals, chief product officer at Tangoe. “With year-over-year cloud spending up 30%, we’re seeing the financial fallout of AI demands. Left unmanaged, GenAI has the potential to make innovation financially unsustainable.”

The report noted that cloud software now costs businesses an average of $2,559 per employee annually. Large organizations spend an average of $40 million on cloud fees annually, with very large organizations worth more than $10 billion spending $132 million annually.

However, while cloud costs are rising due to AI, leaders are also confident that they can be managed. Schrock said his own firm has controls in place specifically to monitor data usage to avoid outsized costs. For instance, recently they tried a new LLM tool from Microsoft that caused a short 3,000% spike in usage, but firm leaders received an alert and quickly stepped in. 

“It’s not like when you get surprised by the electric bill. You put controls in place to do things smart,” he said. 

Further, while the costs have increased, he said they have still gained more than they lost in terms of increased efficiency and productivity. The extra fees are still lower than the cost of hiring an entirely new human, and the quality of work is better than what humans would accomplish alone. So while their Microsoft Azure bill is higher, they’re also able to deliver more for less cost overall, so it has been a net positive. 

“What we’ve been talking about are the costs to run AI. I’ve got the cost to run a car but it also gets me places more easily. The cost will be a thing but used appropriately it will be great,” he said, adding that it’s important to use the right tool for the right situation; maybe you don’t need to access the high-data AI model to solve a problem, maybe Copilot would work fine. 

Diffin raised a similar point. While he conceded overall costs have gone up, the money has been well-spent in terms of product development. 

“Certainly gen AI capabilities are increasing in cost, and overall costs have gone up because we’re using more and more of what [Microsoft] offers, and so what translates into for us is developing and releasing products faster than if we were to develop everything ourselves,” said Diffin. 

On top of cloud fees, subscriptions and licenses were also mentioned as a significant ongoing expense. This includes subscriptions not only for the tools used to create and maintain AI systems but also for AI solutions that the firm chooses to buy rather than build.  While the individual subscriptions may not be much, when considering the size of certain firms, like Crowe, they can quickly add up, especially considering there are multiple products the firm subscribes to. 

“Everything is a subscription. So you have all the different types of subscriptions. Crowe is making significant investments in ongoing software licensing for the leading enterprise AI solutions, things like Microsoft Copilot for example. We expect everyone in the firm to be using that in 2025. It’s over half right now … We’re also buying specialty AI based applications to fit particular needs and things like copy AI for marketing and search, and there’s a whole suite of specialty apps that we sign up for with specialty use cases, so that becomes the ongoing expense,” he said. 

Labor costs, training costs

And then there are the people who create and maintain these models, often software engineers and data specialists. While often touted as a labor saving device, AI can come with surprisingly large labor costs, according to Schellman’s Kouzios. 

“I would say in general, probably as close to 15-20% of my IT budget will be spent on AI, closer to 25% for the first year [of deployment]. Of that, if you take that number and break it out, 85-90% is labor,” he said. 

The firm, which already hosts a large number of technical specialists, recently hired more to support the firm’s AI ambitions, seeking to shore up its machine learning, data analytics and product management expertise, which allows its staff to focus on “building what it is we want to do.”  While this does represent a spending increase, he is confident that the efficiencies they uncover will increase firm-wide capacities over time. 

“I think we’ll get to a point where, [though] we know the costs will go up, ROI on this should be deferral of cost or deterrence of cost, not having to spend money in the future we’d otherwise have to spend. For example, peak season comes up and you need to either hire employees or temp employees,maybe we can avoid that in the future,” he said. 

Another component of labor costs is training the non-technical staff in using the AI systems the technical staff develops and maintains. Schrock, from Crowe, said that, in addition to hiring more experts, the firm has dropped cash on in-depth training and development in things like how to use Microsoft Copilot and other generative AI tools and incorporate them into a workflow. With this training has also come changes in business processes and job descriptions that needed time to properly digest. While there is some learning curve involved, he felt education like this was essential to fully implement the firm’s AI vision. 

“These tools don’t inherently have value, they derive it only through their application to solve problems. So there is one time cost of upskilling and process redesign to incorporate that into the business,” he said. 

And it is not just the humans who need training. Kouzios said one idea he has been exploring lately is assigning those trainers who’ve been educating the human staff to the AI models themselves, which often begin in an almost child-like state and require data input to be effective. 

“I’ve been exploring talking to them about training the models because, this is my experience in IT, nerds are very good at the tech, but here are some things we lack and teaching—when I brought it up to them, I meant teaching the models—the tech people hated the idea, so I might tap into some of [the trainers’] time too,” he said. 

Heat vs light

Yet, while big money is being spent on AI at accounting firms, they should not necessarily take too much stock in the marquee headlines of this firm spending that many billions on AI or that firm spending many more billions still. 

“The billions of dollars here, is more bragging about an investment level. Well, investment level can be measured in a number of different ways. It can be measured by some ginned up cost where you reallocate peoples time and come up with some marketing number on costs, but I don’t put a lot of confidence in those as an expert in the field,” said Crowe’s Schrock. 

Kouzios, from Schellman, raised a similar point, noting that there are a lot of people making big dramatic announcements that, upon closer inspection, are not that significant. 

“You’ve seen those press releases, saying we bought chatGPT for our 85,000 employees, we’re AI enabled. Yippee, well done. For 20 bucks a month I could do that too,” he said. 

When looking at what firms are spending on AI, Schrock said to look not at the jaw-dropping number they announce but in actual deliverables they produce. 

“What I wanna understand is how many people are utilizing it, what unique IP they have created, how aggressively is it being incorporated into service lines, how aggressively do they take this into market—that is a measure of your investment level in AI more so than some number,” he said.

But what about smaller firms? Turns out, their experiences with AI costs are much different than large scale firms with international footprints. We intend to explore this issue more deeply in another story soon.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Senate unveils plan to fast-track tax cuts, debt limit hike

Published

on

Senate Republicans unveiled a budget blueprint designed to fast-track a renewal of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and an increase to the nation’s borrowing limit, ahead of a planned vote on the resolution later this week. 

The Senate plan will allow for a $4 trillion extension of Trump’s tax cuts and an additional $1.5 trillion in further levy reductions. The House plan called for $4.5 trillion in total cuts.

Republicans say they are assuming that the cost of extending the expiring 2017 Trump tax cuts will cost zero dollars.

The draft is a sign that divisions within the Senate GOP over the size and scope of spending cuts to offset tax reductions are closer to being resolved. 

Lawmakers, however, have yet to face some of the most difficult decisions, including which spending to cut and which tax reductions to prioritize. That will be negotiated in the coming weeks after both chambers approve identical budget resolutions unlocking the process.

The Senate budget plan would also increase the debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, compared with the $4 trillion hike in the House plan. Senate Republicans say they want to ensure that Congress does not need to vote on the debt ceiling again before the 2026 midterm elections. 

“This budget resolution unlocks the process to permanently extend proven, pro-growth tax policy,” Senate Finance Chairman Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, said. 

The blueprint is the latest in a multi-step legislative process for Republicans to pass a renewal of Trump’s tax cuts through Congress. The bill will renew the president’s 2017 reductions set to expire at the end of this year, which include lower rates for households and deductions for privately held businesses. 

Republicans are also hoping to include additional tax measures to the bill, including raising the state and local tax deduction cap and some of Trump’s campaign pledges to eliminate taxes on certain categories of income, including tips and overtime pay.

The plan would allow for the debt ceiling hike to be vote on separately from the rest of the tax and spending package. That gives lawmakers flexibility to move more quickly on the debt ceiling piece if a federal default looms before lawmakers can agree on the tax package.

Political realities

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Wednesday, after meeting with Trump at the White House to discuss the tax blueprint, that he’s not sure yet if he has the votes to pass the measure.

Thune in a statement said the budget has been blessed by the top Senate ruleskeeper but Democrats said that it is still vulnerable to being challenged later.

The biggest differences in the Senate budget from the competing House plan are in the directives for spending cuts, a reflection of divisions among lawmakers over reductions to benefit programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. 

The Senate plan pares back a House measure that calls for at least $2 trillion in spending reductions over a decade, a massive reduction that would likely mean curbing popular entitlement programs.

The Senate GOP budget grants significantly more flexibility. It instructs key committees that oversee entitlement programs to come up with at least $4 billion in cuts. Republicans say they expect the final tax package to contain much larger curbs on spending.

The Senate budget would also allow $150 billion in new spending for the military and $175 billion for border and immigration enforcement.

If the minimum spending cuts are achieved along with the maximum tax cuts, the plan would add $5.8 trillion in new deficits over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The Senate is planning a vote on the plan in the coming days. Then it goes to the House for a vote as soon as next week. There, it could face opposition from spending hawks like South Carolina’s Ralph Norman, who are signaling they want more aggressive cuts. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson can likely afford just two or three defections on the budget vote given his slim majority and unified Democratic opposition.

Continue Reading

Accounting

How asset location decides bond ladder taxes

Published

on

Financial advisors and clients worried about stock volatility and inflation can climb bond ladders to safety — but they won’t find any, if those steps lead to a place with higher taxes.

The choice of asset location for bond ladders in a client portfolio can prove so important that some wealthy customers holding them in a taxable brokerage account may wind up losing money in an inflationary period due to the payments to Uncle Sam, according to a new academic study. And those taxes, due to what the author described as the “dead loss” from the so-called original issue discount compared to the value, come with an extra sting if advisors and clients thought the bond ladder had prepared for the rise in inflation.

Bond ladders — whether they are based on Treasury inflation-protected securities like the strategy described in the study or another fixed-income security — provide small but steady returns tied to the regular cadence of maturities in the debt-based products. However, advisors and their clients need to consider where any interest payments, coupon income or principal accretion from the bond ladders could wind up as ordinary income, said Cal Spranger, a fixed income and wealth manager with Seattle-based Badgley + Phelps Wealth Managers.

“Thats going to be the No. 1 concern about, where is the optimal place to hold them,” Spranger said in an interview. “One of our primary objectives for a bond portfolio is to smooth out that volatility. … We’re trying to reduce risk with the bond portfolio, not increase risks.”

READ MORE: Why laddered bond portfolios cover all the bases

The ‘peculiarly bad location’ for a bond ladder

Risk-averse planners, then, could likely predict the conclusion of the working academic paper, which was posted in late February by Edward McQuarrie, a professor emeritus in the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University: Tax-deferred retirement accounts such as a 401(k) or a traditional individual retirement account are usually the best location for a Treasury inflation-protected securities ladder. The appreciation attributes available through an after-tax Roth IRA work better for equities than a bond ladder designed for decumulation, and the potential payments to Uncle Sam in brokerage accounts make them an even worse asset location.

“Few planners will be surprised to learn that locating a TIPS ladder in a taxable account leads to phantom income and excess payment of tax, with a consequent reduction in after-tax real spending power,” McQuarrie writes. “Some may be surprised to learn just how baleful that mistake in account location can be, up to and including negative payouts in the early years for high tax brackets and very high rates of inflation. In the worst cases, more is due in tax than the ladder payout provides. And many will be surprised to learn how rapidly the penalty for choosing the wrong asset location increases at higher rates of inflation — precisely the motivation for setting up a TIPS ladder in the first place. Perhaps the most surprising result of all was the discovery that excess tax payments in the early years are never made up. [Original issue discount] causes a dead loss.”

The Roth account may look like a healthy alternative, since the clients wouldn’t owe any further taxes on distributions from them in retirement. But the bond ladder would defeat the whole purpose of that vehicle, McQuarrie writes.

“Planners should recognize that a Roth account is a peculiarly bad location for a bond ladder, whether real or nominal,” he writes. “Ladders are decumulation tools designed to provide a stream of distributions, which the Roth account does not otherwise require. Locating a bond ladder in the Roth thus forfeits what some consider to be one of the most valuable features of the Roth account. If the bond ladder is the only asset in the Roth, then the Roth itself will have been liquidated as the ladder reaches its end.”

READ MORE: How to hedge risk with annuity ladders

RMD advantages

That means that the Treasury inflation-protected securities ladder will add the most value to portfolios in a tax-deferred account (TDA), which McQuarrie acknowledges is not a shocking recommendation to anyone familiar with them. On the other hand, some planners with clients who need to begin required minimum distributions from their traditional IRA may reap further benefits than expected from that location.

“More interesting is the demonstration that the after-tax real income received from a TIPS ladder located in a TDA does not vary with the rate of inflation, in contrast to what happens in a taxable account,” McQuarrie writes. “Also of note was the ability of most TIPS ladders to handle the RMDs due, and, at higher rates of inflation, to shelter other assets from the need to take RMDs.”

The present time of high yields from Treasury inflation-protected securities could represent an ample opportunity to tap into that scenario.

“If TIPS yields are attractive when the ladder is set up, distributions from the ladder will typically satisfy RMDs on the ladder balance throughout the 30 years,” McQuarrie writes. “The higher the inflation experienced, the greater the surplus coverage, allowing other assets in the account to be sheltered in part from RMDs by means of the TIPS ladder payout. However, if TIPS yields are borderline unattractive at ladder set up, and if the ladder proved unnecessary because inflation fell to historically low levels, then there may be a shortfall in RMD coverage in the middle years, requiring either that TIPS bonds be sold prematurely, or that other assets in the TDA be tapped to cover the RMD.”

READ MORE: A primer on the IRA ‘bridge’ to bigger Social Security benefits

The key takeaways on bond ladders

Other caveats to the strategies revolve around any possible state taxes on withdrawals or any number of client circumstances ruling out a universal recommendation. The main message of McQuarrie’s study serves as a warning against putting the ladder in a taxable brokerage account.

“Unsurprisingly, the higher the client’s tax rate, the worse the outcomes from locating a TIPS ladder in taxable when inflation rages,” he writes. “High-bracket taxpayers who accurately foresee a surge in future inflation, and take steps to defend against it, but who make the mistake of locating their TIPS ladder in taxable, can end up paying more in tax to the government than is received from the TIPS ladder during the first year or two.”

For municipal or other types of tax-exempt bonds, though, a taxable account is “the optimal place,” Spranger said. Convertible Treasury or corporate bonds show more similarity with the Treasury inflation-protected securities in that their ideal location is in a tax-deferred account, he noted.

Regardless, bonds act as a crucial core to a client’s portfolio, tamping down on the risk of volatility and sensitivity to interest rates. And the right ladder strategies yield more reliable future rates of returns for clients than a bond ETF or mutual fund, Spranger said.

“We’re strong proponents of using individual bonds, No. 1 so that we can create bond ladders, but, most importantly, for the certainty that individual bonds provide,” he said.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Why IRS cuts may spare a unit that facilitates mortgages

Published

on

Loan applicants and mortgage companies often rely on an Internal Revenue Service that’s dramatically downsizing to help facilitate the lending process, but they may be in luck.

That’s because the division responsible for the main form used to allow consumers to authorize the release of income-tax information to lenders is tied to essential IRS operations.

The Income Verification Express Service could be insulated from what NMN affiliate Accounting Today has described of a series of fluctuating IRS cuts because it’s part of the submission processing unit within wage and investment, a division central to the tax bureau’s purpose.

“It’s unlikely that IVES will be impacted due to association within submission processing,” said Curtis Knuth, president and CEO of NCS, a consumer reporting agency. “Processing tax returns and collecting revenue is the core function and purpose of the IRS.”

Knuth is a member of the IVES participant working group, which is comprised of representatives from companies that facilitate processing of 4506-C forms used to request tax transcripts for mortgages. Those involved represent a range of company sizes and business models.

The IRS has planned to slash thousands of jobs and make billions of dollars of cuts that are still in process, some of which have been successfully challenged in court.

While the current cuts might not be a concern for processing the main form of tax transcript requests this time around, there have been past issues with it in other situations like 2019’s lengthy government shutdown.

President Trump recently signed a continuing funding resolution to avert a shutdown. But it will run out later this year, so the issue could re-emerge if there’s an impasse in Congress at that time. Republicans largely dominate Congress but their lead is thinner in the Senate.

The mortgage industry will likely have an additional option it didn’t have in 2019 if another extended deadlock on the budget emerges and impedes processing of the central tax transcript form.

“It absolutely affected closings, because you couldn’t get the transcripts. You couldn’t get anybody on the phone,” said Phil Crescenzo Jr., vice president of National One Mortgage Corp.’s Southeast division.

There is an automated, free way for consumers to release their transcripts that may still operate when there are issues with the 4506-C process, which has a $4 surcharge. However, the alternative to the 4506-C form is less straightforward and objective as it’s done outside of the mortgage process, requiring a separate logon and actions.

Some of the most recent IRS cuts have targeted technology jobs and could have an impact on systems, so it’s also worth noting that another option lenders have sometimes elected to use is to allow loans temporarily move forward when transcript access is interrupted and verified later. 

There is a risk to waiting for verification or not getting it directly from the IRS, however, as government-related agencies hold mortgage lenders responsible for the accuracy of borrower income information. That risk could increase if loan performance issues become more prevalent.

Currently, tax transcripts primarily come into play for government-related loans made to contract workers, said Crescenzo.

“That’s the only receipt that you have for a self-employed client’s income to know it’s valid,” he said.

The home affordability crunch and rise of gig work like Uber driving has increased interest in these types of mortgages, he said. 

Contract workers can alternatively seek financing from the private non-qualified mortgage market where bank statements could be used to verify self-employment income, but Crescenzo said that has disadvantages related to government-related loans.

“Non QM requires higher downpayments and interest rates than traditional financing,” he said.

In the next couple years, regional demand for loans based on self-employment income could rise given the federal job cuts planned broadly at public agencies, depending on the extent to which court challenges to them go through.

Those potential borrowers will find it difficult to get new mortgages until they can establish more of a track record with their new sources of income, in most cases two years from a tax filing perspective. 

Continue Reading

Trending