Connect with us

Accounting

Remaking the partnership model for young accountants

Published

on

I am optimistic about the “trusted advisor” destination that the accounting profession has marked as its territory, but skeptical of the partnership model as a means of transportation to that promised land. Why? It has to do with young, talented people in public accounting, and the choices that I see them make when they are equipped with complete information. 

In growing my firm, Ascend, over the last two years, I have invested thousands of hours in conversation with managing partners and executive committees. During these discussions, I have heard many firm leaders that I admire advocate on behalf of their brightest young people: “Lisa is a rockstar … how is partnering with you going to be better for her?” 

I have likewise sat in conferences where industry thought leaders proclaim private equity as “the best thing that could happen to young people;” from eyeballing it, the median age in those rooms approached 60! It is encouraging that rising stars of my generation have collectively become the object of deep concern and spirited debate as the profession learns to surf a wave of capital that is challenging tradition, but frankly, it is a shame that young leaders often lack access to the context that would allow them to form their own view and participate in conversation directly. 

That needs to change. So, “Lisa,” if you are out there, I am speaking directly to you. You and other young, talented people of our generation need information to plan for your own future, not a scripted ending penned by someone else with positive intent. Getting up to speed involves confronting the challenges of the partnership model, building awareness of alternatives, and thinking about how you should engage in discussion, once you feel informed. Here’s a crash course.

What is happening to the partnership model?

To start, ownership in a CPA firm is more expensive today than it ever has been. There is more than $15 billion of private capital (more than 1x revenue for the remaining, independent G400) that has decided an ownership stake is worth more than what your firm’s partnership agreement says it is. 

The offer on display from smart money is tempting — access to liquidity much sooner, with better tax treatment, and the chance for “multiple bites at the apple,” with resources to fuel future value creation. While a growing list of firms have opted into that deal, others still have chosen to hold steady to independence; in doing so, fiercely independent firms are beginning to reprice their partnership agreements to bridge this widening gap between the market valuation of a CPA firm and the discount that has historically been used for internal succession. 

What does that mean for you? Partner buy-ins will become more expensive and look-back provisions that allow retired partners to eat into a future sale of the firm will become more common. Young people, your partnership may persist, but the older generation isn’t going to cede all surplus economic value to you forever. It is going to cost more to become an owner, and you need to be prepared for that eventuality.

At the same time, maintaining independence is getting costlier. Independence has long been a virtue of our profession, but make no mistake, it has never been free — growth, fueled by a strong value proposition to clients and employees, is what has propped up the independent partnership model as a way of serving others, organizing talent, and creating wealth for many generations. 

Historically, this has taken periodic reinvestment to sustain — hiring talent from competitors before clients follow; putting up working capital to tuck in a new firm; sampling a la carte technology products like SafeSend and Aiwyn that hit the market. Sadly, this window-shopping pace of reinvestment is not going to cut it anymore. Our profession is navigating a rapidly changing backdrop, which is calling for expensive, transformative change in a compressed period.

Here’s what I mean: If you take the time to forecast the next 10 years of public accounting supply (i.e., credentialed CPAs in America) and demand (i.e., U.S. total addressable market), the well-documented conclusions are:

  • 75% of today’s CPAs will have retired in the next decade; and,
  • Revenue per CPA is projected to 2.7x during that period, because new entrants are declining. 

That alone is the most precipitous change in labor dynamics since these statistics have been tracked. What is less covered, but equally important, is that 10 years from now, more than 85% of CPAs in America will have less than 10 years of experience. Think about that: We need to achieve a 2.7x growth in personal productivity, with nine in 10 professionals having less than a decade of experience. What does a 10-year person do in your firm today? Can they drink a tsunami from a fire hose?
It all begs the question of how firm leaders are going to respond to this market-driven reality. Build a global team that can go toe to toe with U.S. CPAs on technical expertise and client service? Automate away half our billable hours? Rebuild a professional development curriculum with “Lean” manufacturing principles to cut partner cook time from 20 years to 10? All the above? 

It can be done, and the market share opportunity for firms that do this successfully is hard to overstate, but these initiatives take many millions of dollars to pursue, functional expertise to get right, and deep commitment to test, learn and, ultimately, produce results.

If you are on the outside of a partnership looking in, take a step back with clear eyes and you’ll see that you are being taxed twice for entry: once to purchase your ownership stake relative to its historical cost, and once more to make investments in your firm that are greater than ever before required, at a pace that’s unprecedented, without a guarantee of paying off. 

There are some important questions to ask as you take stock of this reality: Have you talked about how much this will cost? Would your firm be effective at deploying the money you choose to set aside? Will today’s senior partners share in the cost with you, and start now? Are you willing to spend the money for the chance of an ordinary income payout between ages 65 to 75, at a discount to the then-market price? Given how these trends affect your ability to win talent, how will you guarantee that someone will stand behind you in 25 years to make the same bet you are making today?

These questions should be discussed broadly. You may have satisfying answers, but to make forward progress as a firm, your partner group must agree with you, and there is no time to waste.

What is the alternative?

If you don’t want to merge your firm into another, the primary alternative to going it alone is to trade in the keys to your unfunded partnership for private equity backing. To offer a pithy comparison, partnering with private equity has several advantages relative to your status quo:

  • Important investments are made with other people’s money;
  • Corporate governance permits faster decision-making at a moment where pace matters;
  • The economic model is more efficient, and can be more generous: equity participation happens earlier; ownership always trades at a market price; liquidity is more frequent and tax-advantaged;
  • All of this done right creates a better place to work, and the flywheel turns; and,
  • Other industries show us that the flywheel can turn indefinitely.

And yet, these easily understood benefits are subject to valid lines of inquiry from those peering in:

  • If ownership changes hands frequently, who is to say the ride will be smooth?
  • Are incentives aligned in a way that upholds quality standards?
  • How should I sort through all the different forms of private equity that exist (local equity versus parent equity; minority versus majority, dealing with PE directly versus through an operating company like Ascend; etc.)?

All good questions, especially because not all private equity is created equally. These pros and cons can only be weighed appropriately through education, and there would be much more to discuss.

Where to go from here?

Get your seat at the table. My purpose in writing is not to drive you to a specific conclusion, but instead to give you the context needed to form your own. 

If you are on a path to becoming an owner in your firm, you are committing (consciously or not) to what is becoming one of the more expensive investments in the U.S. economy. I understand how busy practitioners are, but it is worth knowing if you are positioned to realize a return on that investment via the partnership model. 

You can do that by:

  • Demanding clarity on your firm’s direction;
  • Seriously assessing the “how” behind the vision that is shared with you; and finally, 
  • Encouraging leadership to explore options, which I have found to sharpen thinking regardless of a firm’s ultimate decision around go-it-alone versus sponsorship.

Our generation is the one that will navigate this sea change in public accounting. Create the time to underwrite your future and make your opinion known.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

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

on

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

Trending