Connect with us

Accounting

PCAOB sees improvements in largest audit firms

Published

1 year ago

on

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s inspection staff found noticeable improvements in the deficiency rates of the six largest global auditing firms, according to a report Monday.

In 2024, the PCAOB observed a tangible decrease in Part I.A deficiency rates, on average, across all inspected firms, as well as a substantial improvement, in the aggregate, among the largest firms it inspects annually. The improvement follows increased efforts by the PCAOB to encourage firms to reverse the trend of rising deficiency rates following the pandemic. 

“We challenged the audit profession to do better for America’s investors, and these significant improvements demonstrate real progress in protecting investors,” said PCAOB chair Erica Williams in a statement. “Still, our work is far from over, and I urge the audit profession to build on this momentum.”

For all inspected firms, the aggregate Part I.A deficiency rate decreased to 39% in 2024, down from 46% in 2023. For the Big Four U.S. firms (Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC), which as of Dec. 31, 2024, collectively audit about 80% of the market capitalization of public companies, the aggregate Part I.A deficiency rate decreased to 20% in 2024, down from 26% in 2023.

The aggregate Part I.A deficiency rate for the six U.S. global network firms (BDO USA, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, KPMG and PwC) decreased to 26% in 2024, from 34% in 2023.

Results at the eight annually inspected U.S. non-affiliated firms held steady, decreasing to 52% in the aggregate in 2024, compared to 53% in 2023 (when the eight inspected firms were Marcum, RSM US, Crowe, Withum, Moss Adams, Baker Tilly US, B F Borgers and Cohen & Company, Ltd., though BF Borgers was suspended last year and Marcum was acquired by CBIZ). While the same firms are not inspected year-to-year, the PCAOB saw improvements at the non-affiliated firms and global network triennially inspected firms. Aggregate deficiency rates at NAF triennially inspected firms decreased from 67% in 2023 to 61% in 2024, and GNF triennially inspected firms decreased from 35% in 2023 to 26% in 2024.

Williams has called on firms to improve their audit quality since she became chair of the PCAOB in 2022, and the PCAOB has been focusing on encouraging auditing firms to address their high deficiency rates coming out of the pandemic. Some of the initiatives include publishing more information, resources and tools to help firms improve their audit quality; increasing transparency; engaging regularly with audit firms; providing focused support to smaller firms; publishing implementation guidance for new PCAOB standards; prioritizing guidance and communication regarding remediation submissions for quality control deficiencies; engaging directly and regularly with U.S. audit committees; and increasing the PCAOB’s focus on the effect of firm culture on audit quality.

The PCAOB began seeing deficiency rates leveling off at the largest firms last year when it released its 2023 inspection results for them. On Monday, the PCAOB released separate inspection reports for the six largest firms. 

At BDO USA, P.C, 18 of the 30 audits reviewed in 2024 were included in Part I.A of the report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, a 60% deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies mainly related to BDO’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts, goodwill and intangible assets, and business combinations. However, that represented an improvement over BDO USA’s 2023 results, when 25 of the 29 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2023 were included in Part I.A, an 86% Part I.A deficiency rate.

At Deloitte & Touche LLP, nine of the 63 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2024 were included in Part I.A of the report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, for a 14% Part I.A deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies mainly related to Deloitte’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue, allowance for credit losses, and leases. That too was an improvement for Deloitte, where in its 2023 report, 12 of the 56 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2023 were included in Part I.A of the report, translating into a 21% Part I.A audit deficiency rate.

At Ernst & Young LLP, 18 of the 64 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2024 were included in Part I.A of this report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, a 28% Part I.A deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies primarily related to EY’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts, inventory and long-lived assets. That again was an improvement over 2023’s inspection report for EY, when 22 of the 59 audits we reviewed in 2023 are included in Part I.A, for a 37% deficiency rate.

At Grant Thornton LLP, 13 of the 27 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2024 were included in Part I.A of this report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, a 48% Part IA deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies primarily related to the firm’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts and inventory. While a 48% deficiency rate may seem high, it was better than the 54% rate on the 2023 inspection report for GT, when 15 of the 28 audits reviewed in 2023 were included in Part I.A.

For KPMG LLP, 13 of the 64 audits reviewed in 2024 were included in Part I.A of its report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, a 20% Part I.A deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies mainly related to the firm’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts and allowance for credit losses. That too was an improvement over the 15 of 58 audits reviewed in 2023 that were included in Part I.A of the 2023 report on KPMG, a 26% Part I.A deficiency rate.

For PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 10 of the 64 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2024 were included in Part I.A of the report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified, a 16% Part I.A deficiency rate. The identified deficiencies primarily related to the firm’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts and the allowance for credit losses. That was comparable to the 2023 report for PwC, when 10 of the 57 audits reviewed by the PCAOB in 2023 were included in Part I.A of the report, an 18% Part I.A deficiency rate.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

1 week ago

on

August 15, 2026

By

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 9, 2026

By

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 5, 2026

By

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Trending