Connect with us

Accounting

Audit quality: Moving from a document to a system

Published

on

How often and how much does your firm think about quality? Every auditor is, by nature, committed to quality. Every firm has final quality control steps built into its production process. However, with the latest AICPA quality management standard, SQMS 1, firms will have to take a more holistic approach to quality. 

And with the Dec. 15, 2025, deadline for implementation rapidly approaching, this thinking needs to change quickly. 

Under the previous quality standards, firms had to create a quality control document. Most firms drafted these by making a few changes to a one-size-fits-all resource, resulting in a static document that sat on a shelf. 

This QCD was dusted off for peer review every three years. As far as we can tell, peer review rarely checks to see if this document is still relevant and whether it has been updated since its creation. Peer reviewers were not required to verify that the firm followed the QCD. The QCD was largely a checkbox on a peer review checklist. 

In contrast, SQMS 1 requires firms to develop a dynamic quality management system that must be tailored to every firm. The standards require firms to address eight components to develop a holistic system to proactively improve quality in audit and assurance engagements. The AICPA practice aids warn that a copy-and-paste approach will not work, and we concur with this assessment. 

As we have worked with firms over the last two years to help them create a firm-specific QMS, we’ve noticed a few areas where firms struggle with this project. Our hope with this article is to provide some clarity so firms will have an easier time meeting the upcoming deadline. 

A QMS is a system, not a document

One approach we have encountered is finding and replacing the word “document” in their QCD with “management system.” The problem with this approach is their QCD was a static set of aspirational policies that were rarely woven into a culture of quality at the firm. They often use vague terms like “periodically” and “timely” for the frequency of evaluating and responding to risk events, and rarely spell out the responses to those risk events. 

In contrast, a QMS is a dynamic framework of interacting objectives with policies and procedures to monitor quality and risk events and to remediate problems when they arise. The standards call for ongoing monitoring at regular intervals with root cause analysis and remediation when something goes wrong and results in a risk event. 

While monitoring naturally takes place throughout the year, an annual review of the QMS is recommended. When a risk event is identified, either during the year or as a result of the annual monitoring process, the timeframe to carry out root cause analysis and remediation is linked to the risk severity ranking. 

Your QMS needs to include a mechanism for tracking risk events. When an event occurs, you will need to perform a root cause analysis. A process we recommend to firms is the “Five Whys” method. First, you describe the issue and ask why that happened. Then, ask why that first event happened. By the time you reach the fifth iteration and the fifth why, you should be able to identify the root cause of the problem, which should guide you to a remediation process that will need to be incorporated into the QMS on a go-forward basis. 

Unlike QCDs, which were rarely updated, a QMS needs to be updated at least annually to scale with your firm. Your QMS can be a tool to make your firm better. Some firms are using their newly created QMS as a reason to disengage from poor-fit clients. 

A QMS is tailored to your firm

As we have worked with firms to develop their QMS, we’ve come across QCDs that don’t reflect reality at those firms. One firm’s QCD stated that bonuses and other compensation would be based on quality work, but there was no mechanism to do so. We noted one firm that had identified issues during their annual inspections over the years, but hadn’t taken any action on them or communicated them to the department. 

Some QCDs say the firms won’t do government audits or employee benefit plan audits, but they did lots of those audits, or vice versa. Another firm said its mission and values were to be posted on a placard throughout the office, but we didn’t see that anywhere. 

Every firm is different, so every firm needs to create its own specifically tailored QMS that reflects the nature of engagements performed by that firm. As we wrote previously, we advocate SMART objectives, which are specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and timely. For example, instead of a QCD’s assertion of a commitment to ethical leadership, a QMS objective might require quarterly leadership meetings to reinforce professional standards, review ethics cases, and address quality concerns. The procedures and tracking for that objective can now guide where the agenda and relevant documents for the leadership meetings are stored, improving internal processes and cleaning up file management.

A QMS is more than words

Most firms find that developing their quality objectives and the accompanying policies, procedures and remediation processes requires a great deal of discussion, wordsmithing and deep thinking to create the documents that serve as their QMS. 

Make no mistake, this will be a major undertaking, so if you haven’t started by now, you need to start today. 

However, it would be a grave mistake to think that once the email with the final document is sent out to the team, the work is complete. Because this is a quality management system, you need to consider how this will change your firm’s operations. 

  • How will this system support the development of a culture of quality? 
  • What changes will be needed to ensure your firm is fully committed to quality? 
  • What areas will require additional resources? 
  • What meetings will need to be scheduled to review risk events, and how often do these meetings need to happen? 
  • What will be the process for reviewing and updating your QMS? 

These are just a few questions you will need to consider so quality becomes an everyday consideration, not simply a step for the QA person. 

Quality is not the only goal

While the emphasis for firms this year is on quality, this is only one of the three sides of an equilateral triangle that creates stable and successful firms. The other two sides are client service and profitability. Without balance on all three sides, firms struggle. 

You can have the best QMS system in the world, but have so much bureaucracy that it slows the system down, so you lose clients and endanger profitability. You could put so much attention on keeping clients happy that you jeopardize profitability and quality. Or you might push profitability to the point of making clients unhappy and skimping on quality. 

The best QMS system operates smoothly and identifies issues quickly while enabling you to focus on what you’re best at. It supports providing value to your clients, which allows the firm to be profitable.

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