Savant Wealth Management acquired registered investment advisor Corrigan Financial, based in Middletown, Rhode Island, on April 30. 

This deal expands Savant’s geographic footprint to 44 offices in 19 states. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Savant is a CPA-led, fee-only RIA based in Rockford, Illinois. It has 537 employees and is No. 1 on Accounting Today‘s Top 150 Firms by Assets Under Management list with $29.6 billion in AUM and $1.2 billion in assets under advisement as of March 31. It offers investment management, financial planning, retirement plans and family office services to financially established individuals and institutions, as well as corporate accounting, tax preparation, payroll and consulting through its affiliate Savant Tax & Consulting, and estate planning document preparation and other legal services through its affiliated law firm, Savant Legal.

“The Corrigan team shares our values, particularly in the area of lifelong learning,” Brent Brodeski, a CPA, founder and CEO of Savant, said in a statement. “It’s important to note that the majority of Corrigan’s financial planners hold the CPA license, given the importance of integrating tax planning into clients’ financial plans and the current nationwide shortage of CPAs. In addition, Corrigan takes a like-minded approach to planning and investments that we believe will help Savant build density and improve more lives in the northeast,.”

Corrigan is a 25-person, fee-only RIA with $1.15 billion in AUM. The firm offers personal financial planning, investment management, tax planning and estate planning services. It also prepares income tax returns for over 1,000 families. Corrigan’s tax service offering will be incorporated into the Savant Tax & Consulting business line. 

“Savant’s tax focus was one of the major reasons we considered partnering with the firm, but we were also attracted to the firm’s long-term vision, which can help benefit both our clients and our team,” David Corrigan, a CPA, founder and principal shareholder of Corrigan, said in a statement. “Savant is a recognized leader among top CPA financial planning firms, and our shared commitment to comprehensive wealth management, including tax planning and preparation, made Savant a logical choice for our team.”

Savant is 65% employee owned. Corrigan and 15 shareholders of Corrigan Financial became member-owners upon joining Savant at close. 

Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.

The contentious 150-hour rule — the number of college credit hours required to sit the CPA exam — has been a sticking point in the profession since it became the standard in the 1990s. With an ongoing talent crisis, uncompetitive salaries and rising education costs further weakening the inflow of new professionals, is the end of the rule the first step to changing the tide?

Median annual salaries for entry-level accountants hover around $65,000, according to 2024 research by Accounting Today. It’s not until the managerial tier that accountants can start to earn six figures on average.

Next to lower wages, many have suggested that the time required to pursue a CPA license has been a major hurdle driving prospective talent into other financial services. As a result, the American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy have started to guide states through adopting additional licensure pathways.

These efforts have been met with optimism from state CPA societies and accounting students alike, but misconceptions have also been brought to light from those critical of such efforts. Top concerns range from “We are lowering the standards,” to “This licensure change alone will solve the talent shortage.”

Susan Speirs, chief executive of the Utah Association of CPAs, said that while the passage of a CPA licensure bill in the state is a good first step to address the talent shortage across the profession, it’s hardly the last.

“My hope would be that we can start discussing the real issues surrounding our profession such as firm models, salary models, image models, CPE models, PE models and more before the profession implodes on itself,” Speirs said.

Read more: There’s an accountant shortage, but will 150-hour alternatives fix it?

For Calvin Harris, chief executive of the New York Society of CPAs and a CPA who was licensed more than 20 years ago, a return to the former 120-hour standard isn’t as outlandish as it sounds. 

“Where we’ve landed here in New York is that while we will continue to offer the pathway of 150 credit hours, we thought it was right to add back the 120-hour pathway,” Harris said. “In many ways it’s new since it hasn’t really been active, at least in New York, for more than two decades. But it’s also a return to a pathway [that previously existed].”

Senate Bill S6891 was introduced on March 26 by Senator Toby Ann Stavisky, D-N.Y., who chairs the committee on higher education. If passed, it would allow those pursuing CPA licensure in the state to be eligible with a bachelor’s degree (120 credit hours), two years of professional experience and a passing grade on the CPA exam.

Regarding perspectives that lowering the credit hour threshold would yield less skilled accounts, Harris said that the total six years spent pursuing the accreditation has not and would not change. What would change is a contentious fifth year in school that could be a financial make-or-break for some students.

“We’re talking about socioeconomic barriers,” Harris said. “From a diverse profession perspective, we also see where that fifth year burdens underrepresented groups on a higher level.”

Leaders with the state CPA societies of Iowa and California have similar sentiments regarding the “extra” 30 hours spent towards a CPA license, and how the financial burden of those hours takes a different toll on underrepresented groups.

California’s AB 1175  sets out to create “more accessible, flexible and affordable pathways, especially for those from underrepresented backgrounds and second-career individuals, while still upholding high standards,” said Denise LeDuc Froemming, CEO of CalCPA.

Read more: Why the 150-hour requirement must evolve

States that have successfully passed legislation creating more options for becoming a CPA will be important case studies to track whether these new pathways boost the flow of new talent into accounting.

Dive into more coverage of the topic and the broader implications of the 150-hour rule below.

AICPA, NASBA mull alternative pathways to CPA licensure

In February, the American Institute of CPAs and the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy introduced proposed changes to the Uniform Accountancy Act model legislation that would provide states with codified language for drafting CPA licensure-focused bills.

Both organizations called upon the joint UAA committee to draft templated law language that involves a bachelor’s degree plus two years of experience as a state-determined pathway to licensure that incorporates a broad role for experience and individual-based practice privilege that incorporates a CPA’s ability to practice across state lines.

“The accounting profession has seen a remarkable convergence in recent weeks of stakeholders around flexibility that creates greater access for those who are interested in pursuing a career in accounting,” Susan Coffey, CEO of public accounting at the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, told Accounting Today.

Read more: AICPA, NASBA propose alternative path to CPA license

PeopleImages/Getty Images

Could alternatives to the 150-hour rule create new talent pipelines?

For more than 20 years, the 150-credit hour rule for becoming a CPA has been the standard across the profession. But as a dwindling number of college students elect to major in accounting, combined with stagnating wages and the cost of higher education, that stands to change over the coming years.

Data gathered in a 2023 Center for Audit Quality study found that more than half of nonaccounting majors pegged higher starting salaries as the deciding factor for not studying accounting.

“If you just took [the Consumer Price Index] and applied it to the starting salary back in 1982, you’re very close to the starting salary of what the fifth-year students were a year ago, so the profession really hasn’t caught up,” Edward Wilkins, an accounting professor and former audit partner at a Big Four firm, told AT. “Did they ever really get credit for that fifth year if it was just a CPI adjustment?”

Read more: New ways to CPA

Ohio, Virginia among host of states pushing past 150-hour rule

While Ohio and Virginia were the first states to successfully pass legislation that creates new options for obtaining CPA licensure, they aren’t the last.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed Senate Bill 15 into law on March 25, creating alternative pathways for accountants in the state seeking to become CPAs. Under the legislation, obtaining a license can be done through acquiring a bachelor’s degree with a concentration in accounting or business, two years of experience under the supervision of a licensed CPA and passing the CPA exam, or a master’s degree, one year of experience under the supervision of a licensed CPA and passing the CPA exam.

States with bills in progress include Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota and others, many of which have the backing of their state CPA societies.

Read more: States move beyond the 150-hour rule

Iowa successfully adds new paths for CPA licensure

State legislators in Iowa, with the support of the Iowa Society of CPAs, have passed a bill that would create new alternatives for obtaining CPA licensure within the region.

House Bill 177 passed both chambers of the Iowa Legislature with a unanimous Senate vote, and is now in the hands of Gov. Kim Reynolds awaiting signing. In addition to CPA accreditation changes, the bill allows for those with CPA licenses from other states to practice within Iowa.

Any changes stemming from the bill would go into effect on July 1, 2026, upon Gov. Reynolds signing it into law.

“This legislation reflects a forward-thinking approach to licensure that preserves the integrity of the CPA while opening the door to more aspiring professionals,” ISCPA interim CEO Ardis Kelley said in a statement. “At a time when the profession is experiencing a decline of new licensees and increase in retirements, this is a much-needed step to attract new talent.”

Read more: Iowa adds path to CPA licensure

Nick Fox – stock.adobe.com

Georgia CPA advocates successfully pass bill for CPA licensure

Among a host of states working to overhaul the traditional pathways to becoming a CPA, Georgia is one that has seen recent success.

House Bill 148, known as the Public Accountancy Act of 2025, was carried through the Georgia General Assembly with the support of the Georgia Society of CPAs on April 7. The bill introduces qualifications for CPA accreditation for those with a master’s degree in accounting or taxation and one year of relevant experience, or with a bachelor’s degree in accounting and two years of pertinent experience.

Also included are provisions for allowing out-of-state CPAs to practice in Georgia. The bill awaits signing by Gov. Brian Kemp.

“The new pathways to CPA licensure and expanded practice privilege mobility are essential steps toward addressing the growing demand for skilled accounting professionals,” GSCPA CEO Boyd Search said in a statement.

Read more: Georgia passes CPA licensure changes bill

Audit regulators are increasing their focus on how group auditors identify, engage and supervise component auditors, sparking important discussions about effectiveness, practicality and unintended consequences.

Is this level of scrutiny necessary for all group audits, or should regulators take a risk-based approach? Are auditors spending too much time on reporting instead of enhancing audit quality? And with AI reshaping audit methodologies, why aren’t auditors leveraging real-time analytics to ensure they engage the right component auditors for high-risk areas?

These aren’t just compliance questions — they challenge the future of global audits, the role of technology and the balance between oversight and efficiency.

The group auditor’s dilemma

Every group audit presents unique risks — multiple jurisdictions, different reporting frameworks and varying component auditors. Group auditors cannot execute these audits alone; they must rely on component auditors positioned in every corner of the world. And let’s be honest — not all auditors are trained equally, adding complexity to the group auditor’s oversight responsibilities. The group auditor’s role is to demonstrate oversight, yet the expectations for how they supervise component auditors continue to evolve.

Group auditors face criticism for insufficient oversight, inconsistent risk assessments and overreliance on local teams. The common response — stricter oversight and more documentation. But is that truly the right answer?

A better solution may just be that group auditors equip (and train) their component auditors with the best tools available to assess and respond to risks effectively. Technology already delivers real-time risk insights and should be the standard for group audits. Instead of sending more checklists and outdated instructions, group auditors should adopt AI-driven risk assessments to focus oversight where it matters most. These tools empower group auditors to engage the right component auditors and enhance audit quality through smarter, more targeted supervision.

Some would say that minor discrepancies — like a misspelled name or failing to identify a component auditor — rarely impact audit quality in a meaningful way, but instead result in disproportionate administrative burdens. So are we just chasing our tails instead of truly improving audit quality?

The regulator’s position: valid concern or misplaced focus?

Regulatory scrutiny of group audits is increasing, but the impact on audit quality remains unclear. Many group auditors are already struggling to comply with evolving regulations, and additional oversight of how group auditors engage component auditors may not always provide commensurate value.

If audit quality is the endgame, then chasing every detail with a broad brush won’t cut it. It’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff — zero in on the highest-risk areas where it truly counts. A smart, risk-based approach does more with less, especially when resources are already stretched thin. Even if regulators intended to examine every component auditor, do they even have the resources to do so?

“Auditing the auditors” at scale is no small task. Scrutinizing every component auditor is unlikely to yield measurable improvements in audit quality and dilute attention from high-risk engagements. Expanding oversight without clear evidence of impact risks shifting the profession toward check-the-box compliance rather than demonstrating that regulatory review is working as intended.

Maintaining this level of scrutiny without modernization risks overwhelms both auditors and regulators — with little to show in terms of audit quality gains. If oversight efforts aren’t driving measurable improvements, it’s time to rethink the approach and double down on what truly moves the needle.

The technology imperative

AI, automation and analytics have transformed audits, allowing auditors to detect anomalies, assess risks and analyze full populations of data like never before.

Imagine if auditors used AI-powered analytics to monitor financial performance across subsidiaries, identifying inconsistencies and high-risk areas in real time. Group auditors would gain intelligent dashboards for visibility into component auditors’ testing procedures, while audit analytics tools pinpoint risks across global operations demonstrating true oversight.

This isn’t theoretical — it’s happening. Yet many auditors hesitate to scale these solutions, while regulators focus on manual oversight and increased documentation. The question isn’t “Can technology improve audit quality?” but rather, “Why aren’t auditors deploying it more aggressively?”

Regulators and auditors would be far more effective if they worked together to standardize and promote AI-driven audit analytics instead of expanding outdated oversight mechanisms. While AI is already helping auditors pinpoint high-risk areas and drive better audit outcomes, it’s not a silver bullet. It’s a powerful tool — but only when paired with professional judgment and strategic focus. Used wisely, AI and analytics can help direct regulatory inspections to the most critical areas of group audits, making oversight more targeted and effective.

If auditors are expected to adopt AI for sharper risk assessments, regulators need to walk the talk too. So why aren’t more regulators embracing AI to sharpen their inspections? An AI-assisted review could be the way regulators demonstrate their relevance towards faster and scalable oversight responsibility.

The future of audit oversight: adapt or fall behind

Auditors and regulators alike face a pivotal choice: embrace a data-driven future or stay stuck in outdated oversight models. The good news? They’re chasing the same outcome — meaningful, scalable oversight in a world where audits are challenged by global complexity and geopolitical pressures.

Now is the moment to rethink how we monitor global audits. Oversight must shift from broad sampling to high-risk targeting. Auditors need to lead with AI adoption to stay ahead of mounting expectations. And regulators? They have no choice but to modernize — embracing the very tools already transforming the audit profession.

Saying the profession is at a crossroads is stating the obvious. The real question is: who’s willing to move first? The next step will define the future of group audit oversight.