Connect with us

Accounting

PCAOB ramps up enforcement as it faces possible shutdown

Published

on

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board increased its enforcement activity in 2024 to its highest level since 2017, according to a new report, even as the PCAOB faces the prospect of perhaps being absorbed in the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The report, released Wednesday by Cornerstone Research, found that monetary penalties levied by the PCAOB reached their highest for the third consecutive year. The report also compares PCAOB enforcement activity under President Biden to President Trump’s first term.

The report found the PCAOB publicly disclosed 51 total enforcement actions, including 40 actions involving the performance of an audit. Most of these actions came in the first half of the year, with only 10 auditing actions finalized after the Supreme Court ruled against the use of administrative law judges in SEC v. Jarkesy. At $35.7 million, the number of total monetary penalties in 2024 marked a 78% increase over 2023 and represented nearly 40% of all monetary penalties imposed since the PCAOB’s inception.

“The PCAOB continued aggressive enforcement in 2024, finalizing 30 auditing actions in the first half of 2024, more than triple the number of actions finalized in the first half of 2023,” said Jean-Philippe Poissant, one of the report’s co-authors and co-head of Cornerstone Research’s accounting practice, in a statement. “In one in five auditing actions, the PCAOB alleged violations of not only auditing standards, but quality control standards and ethics and independence, as well.”

The report compares PCAOB enforcement under the Biden administration, and found that under the Biden administration, the PCAOB finalized 160 total actions, including 124 auditing actions, compared to 126 and 101, respectively, under the Trump administration. The total value of the monetary penalties imposed were nearly seven times higher during the Biden administration, reaching approximately $68 million, compared to just over $10 million during the first Trump administration.

“The type of respondents in enforcement actions shifted from a majority of individual respondents during the Trump administration to a near even split between individual and firm respondents during the Biden administration,” said Russell Molter, a principal at Cornerstone Research and report coauthor, in a statement. “Additionally, the percentage of respondents fined in Auditing Actions climbed from a little over half (59%) to nearly all respondents (94%).”

With 2024 marking the 20th year since the PCAOB finalized its first enforcement action, the report also analyzed the agency’s enforcement results in the past two decades. In these 20 years, the PCAOB finalized 487 total actions involving 675 respondents, the majority of which (344) were individuals. The PCAOB has imposed $94 million in monetary penalties since its inception.

Changes at the PCAOB and SEC

The report’s release coincides with new concerns over the future of the PCAOB under the Trump administration, which has been laying off thousands of federal employees as part of a cost-cutting initiative, while moving to all but close down agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The aggressive work of the PCAOB has occurred under PCAOB chair Erica Williams who was brought in by former SEC chair Gary Gensler with a mandate to get tougher on auditing firms and ramp up inspections, enforcement and standard-setting. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 planning document that was circulated prior to Trump’s election called for the PCAOB to be abolished, along with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and said their regulatory functions should be absorbed into the SEC.

Trump has nominated Paul Atkins, a former SEC commissioner who was previously critical of the PCAOB, as the next chair of the SEC. That could prompt another wave of turnovers at the board, as occurred during the previous Trump administration and the Biden administration.

“As it relates to the PCAOB and the SEC, I think there’s been a lot of projection, a lot of hypotheses or predictions that the PCAOB would be folded into the SEC based upon prior views of the administration or Chairman Atkins,” said Andrew Gragnani, president of CBIZ CPAs P.C. “That leads to a lot of questions regarding the nature and timing of inspections, the nature and timing of funding, etc. It does not change the need to continue to perform high-quality audits. We’re not planning that there will be wholesale changes to the inspection process. I don’t think that’s a healthy way to look at how this will all play out, but there are changes that people have projected that would impact firms. I think the primary one that people are focused on with the administration is the view that there’ll be less enforcement activity, so that obviously would be one that would be most significant to the firms, given that the PCAOB, under Chairman Williams, has been very active in their enforcement against firms for inspections. That might be the most meaningful change if there was to be this folding of the PCAOB into the SEC. That’s the one major expectation from the administration that has been anticipated.”

Dan Goelzer, one of the original members of the PCAOB and later an acting chair, recently told Accounting Today that a change in the composition of the board is likely.

“I suppose it’s probably pretty likely that there will be maybe a complete change in the membership of the board,” said Dan Goelzer, one of the original members of the PCAOB and later an acting chair. “That happened both of the last times around when there was a change in administration. I don’t really say that with any pleasure. I’d rather see a less political PCAOB. But as a practical matter, I certainly think the new SEC would look to change the chair of the PCAOB — I suppose that’s quite likely at least — and some of the other board members as well.”

There may be a restructuring of the PCAOB as well, along with its possible absorption into the SEC. “The other big picture issue is whether broad efforts to restructure or streamline the government are going to include the idea of folding the PCAOB into the SEC,” said Goelzer. “That came up during the prior Trump administration and was actually proposed in one of Trump’s budgets, and it’s in the Heritage Foundation report. I suspect that will come up as a discussion item, at least. Whether it would actually make it through Congress is far from clear.”

The SEC has overhauled the membership of the PCAOB under Gensler, and during the Trump administration under former SEC chair Jay Clayton, but there were some differences. 

“I do think there’s a distinguishing factor with Jay Clayton in that most, if not all, of the PCAOB board members at that time were serving on expired terms, which was different from four years later, when Gary Gensler was the chair,” said Center for Audit Quality CEO Julie Bell Lindsay. 

She believes effective oversight of the audit profession requires impartiality without political considerations. “The pendulum swinging back and forth every four years is not good,” said Bell Lindsay. “It’s not conducive for long-term audit quality. It’s not conducive to market efficiency and to stability of the capital markets. We would like to avoid the pendulum swinging every four years.”

She pointed out that both the SEC and the PCAOB have enforcement authority over auditors.

“With respect to enforcement over the public company audit profession, there are two cops on the beat,” said Bell Lindsay. “Both the PCAOB and the SEC have enforcement authority when it comes to public company auditors. Where there are bad actors, bad actors need to be held to account. The pendulum has swung pretty far in one direction, and there have been some concerns about the impact of the current enforcement thinking when it comes to retention of talent in the audit profession. This is not a profession that is necessarily bursting at the seams with new talent coming in, so the impact on talent and on public company audit firms wanting to stay in the business of auditing public companies. I think it’s really important to remember that at least 75% of the mid to small cap companies in the U.S. are serviced by mid to small size public company audit firms. A huge swath of the marketplace is serviced by small to mid sized public company auditors, and the impact that standard-setting, enforcement, etc can have on those firms can have unintended consequences.”

Goelzer is seeing similar concerns expressed at small auditing firms. “I’ve certainly heard people say that smaller firms are reconsidering whether they want to be engaged in public company auditing,” he said. “If you only have a handful of public company clients, you look at these penalties and the cost of complying with new auditing standards and regulations, firms may well conclude that they’ll simply leave this space and concentrate on private company auditing or other kinds of services for clients that has a spillover effect than on smaller public companies, which have less auditor choice, and probably increased audit fees as a result.”

The PCAOB board composition is likely to change at the very least. “If you think back to the previous administration, there was a complete overhaul of the board last time around, and we expect that there will be a similar reaction to the regime change,” said Jackson Johnson, president of Johnson Global Advisory, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that helps auditing firms navigate the PCAOB inspection process. “I do expect that the majority of the board will be replaced.”

He expects to see the SEC and the PCAOB taking a less aggressive stance and levying fewer penalties. “The current board’s priorities were to use enforcement as a regulatory tool, more standards and more enforcement,” said Johnson. “The next board will be quite different. The next board will be a more collaborative mindset with firms, more information gathering with stakeholders, more economic analysis to inform standard setting, more robust economic analysis to inform standard setting.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Published

on

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.

The proposed narrow-scope amendments involve minor changes to several IAASB standards:

  • ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert;
  • ISRE 2400 (Revised), Engagements to Review Historical Financial Statements;
  • ISAE 3000 (Revised), Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information;
  • ISRS 4400 (Revised), Agreed-upon Procedures Engagements.

The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.

In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.  

Continue Reading

Accounting

Tariffs will hit low-income Americans harder than richest, report says

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings. 

Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.

Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.

Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed. 

The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.

Continue Reading

Accounting

At Schellman, AI reshapes a firm’s staffing needs

Published

on

Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition. 

Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time. 

“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said. 

One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load. 

“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai. 

Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies. 

“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.

However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area. 

“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai. 

As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales. 

“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai. 

While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves. 

“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”

Continue Reading

Trending