Connect with us

Accounting

AI great at simple tasks but struggles with complexity

Published

on

Artificial intelligence has indeed led tech-forward firms (including those in this year’s Best Firms for Technology) to be more efficient and productive in both client-facing and administrative tasks, but at the same time professionals have found the technology still struggles with precision and accuracy, which limits its usefulness for complex work. 

On the positive end, firms such as the Texas-based Franklin Alliance reported that adopting AI technology has dramatically increased their capacities as bots take on repetitive manual tasks with an ease and a speed far past more conventional automation setups, allowing accountants to focus more on higher value tasks. 

“What’s been most impressive about the AI tools we’ve explored is their ability to dramatically reduce the time spent on repetitive, manual tasks—things like document summarization, data extraction, and even early-stage tax prep. In the right context, these tools create real efficiency gains and allow our team to shift focus to higher-value advisory work,” said Benjamin Holloway, co-founder of Texas-based Franklin Alliance. 

Robot AI scale balance

madedee – stock.adobe.com

For some, like Illinois-based Mowery & Schoenfeld, these efficiencies have been most impressive on the internal administration side, with AI effectively taking care of the non-accounting work that nonetheless keeps many firms afloat, especially where it concerns meetings. 

“Truly most impressive and a huge time savings for us has been AI’s ability to record and summarize Team meetings. Circulating notes and reducing administrative burden on such activities has freed up much capacity, both for our admin side and for partners or management who are not able to be at every meeting,” said Chris Madden, director of information technology.

Others, like top 10 firm Grant Thornton, emphasized AI’s benefits in client-facing activities and noted that it has been especially meaningful in its risk advisory services at least partially due to the firm’s recently-launched CompliAI tool, designed specifically for this area. 

“The tool uses generative artificial intelligence and was developed using Microsoft technology, including Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service. CompliAI’s ability to quickly analyze vast datasets and identify potential risks has proven invaluable in combining Grant Thornton’s extensive global controls library with generative AI models and features, including AI analysis, ranking and natural language processing capabilities. As a result, our employees can run control design and assessment tasks in minutes, versus days or weeks. This means clients enjoy faster operational insights, which could amount to a new level of efficiency and a path toward transformative growth,” said Mike Kempke, GT’s chief information officer. 

Another positive frequently mentioned, such as by top 25 firm Cherry Bekaert, has been the accessibility and ease of use for many AI solutions even for those without strong technical capacities. Assurance partner Jonathan Kraftchick said this means they did not need to wait long before they began seeing results. 

“The most impressive aspect of AI has been its ability to add value with minimal ramp-up time. Many of the tools we’ve implemented have a low barrier to entry, allowing users to start experimenting and seeing results almost immediately. Whether it’s drafting content, conducting accounting research, summarizing meetings, normalizing data, or detecting anomalies, AI has consistently helped accelerate tasks and enable our teams to focus on higher-risk or higher-value areas,” he said. 

Several firms, such as California-based Navolio & Tallman, also mentioned improvements to broad strategy and ideation, saying it’s been good for enhancing creativity and accelerating the early stages of their work. 

“We’ve still seen value in AI as a jumping off point for ideas and strategy. It’s been helpful for brainstorming, drafting early versions of client communications, and supporting high-level planning conversations,” said IT partner Stephanie Ringrose. 

Inconsistencies, inaccuracies, insufficiency, and insecurity

At the same time, firms over and over again said that while the strength of AI comes in handling simple jobs, it often lacks the precision and consistent accuracy needed for higher value accounting work. While it can certainly generate outputs at an industrial scale, trusting that those outputs are correct is another story for firms like Community CPA and Associates. 

“AI is incredibly useful for certain types of tasks, such as summarization, data extraction, answering simple questions, drafting communications or documentation, brainstorming ideas, or serving as a sounding board. However, we have observed that most AI tools we’ve tried have difficulty with complex tasks that require lots of context, precision, or domain-specific knowledge. Oftentimes in these cases, AI tools will generate responses that are overly confident or wrong and are missing key information due to not being integrated with other systems or software we have,” said CEO Ying Sa. 

Some, like top 25 firm Armanino, noted that these challenges mean that humans need to devote considerable time to ensuring the quality of AI outputs and intervening when the programs go off track. 

“The primary disappointment stems from the occasional inaccuracies or biases inherent in AI-generated outputs, commonly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’ necessitating continuous human oversight to ensure reliability. Addressing these inconsistencies remains an ongoing challenge,” said Jim Nagata, senior director of  cybersecurity and IT operations. 

Top 25 firm Eisner Amper’s chief technology officer Sanjay Desai noted that these issues with accuracy and consistency can be found across AI solutions, though noted that the technology is still quite new and so many things are still in the process of being refined. 

“The lows come from the gap between what’s possible and what works reliably in practice. We still need strong guardrails to define valid inputs and outputs, especially in sensitive use cases. Technologies like retrieval augmented generation (RAG) haven’t yet delivered the accuracy or consistency we need when working with proprietary or domain-specific data. Even in mature areas like audio-to-text transcription, we see issues—particularly with accurately identifying speakers in multi-person meetings, which affects the quality of recaps and follow-up actions. In short, while LLMs have come a long way, making them enterprise-ready still requires ongoing human oversight, thoughtful implementation, and continuous refinement,” said Desai. 

Another issue reported by several firms was what firms like Navolio & Tallman saw as ongoing security risks from AI solutions that limits their ability to apply the technology to more sensitive use cases.  

“The overall attention to security and privacy is still more limited than our industry requires, vendors have not yet aligned their pricing models with the impact their tools make to the business, and vendors still oversell their AI capabilities,” she said. 

Top 25 firm Citrin Cooperman also noted–among other things–that the security of these solutions could stand to improve. 

“The overall attention to security and privacy is still more limited than our industry requires, vendors have not yet aligned their pricing models with the impact their tools make to the business, and vendors still oversell their AI capabilities,” said chief information officer Kimberly Paul. 

Another issue with AI that firms have reported is that solutions today don’t seem to integrate especially well with other programs, which limits the ability of these solutions to work across multiple systems in a single coherent workflow–under such conditions, AI solutions can wind up being siloed from the very areas it is needed the most. 

“We believe one of the biggest gaps in current AI solutions is the inability to integrate into other AI solutions to work collectively across one process or workflow. There are many cases where one AI solution is very good at a specific task, while another is very good at another process or task, but the gap is the ability to integrate those solutions together to solve for an entirety of a process or a workflow,” said Brent McDaniel, chief digital officer for top 25 firm Aprio. 

There is also the matter of data integration, which is needed for AI systems to gain a more holistic understanding of a firm’s needs. Without such integrations, AI becomes more limited in its ability to develop insights and provide actionable guidance, according to Tom Hasard, IT shareholder for New Jersey-based Wilken Gutenplan.  

“We wish AI tools could fully synthesize all of our internal data and unique expertise—beyond the scope of general internet search—and provide detailed, context-specific answers for our team. In the near term, we envision an internal system that taps into our accumulated knowledge to assist staff in resolving complex client problems more quickly. Over time, this capability could be extended to give clients direct, on-demand access to our specialized insights, effectively scaling our expertise and delivering value in a more immediate and personalized way,” he said. 

Beyond just data, lack of integration also limits the ability for AI to address complex problems due to lack of cross-disciplinary expertise, according to Kempke from Grant Thornton. 

“Current AI solutions lack the deep cross-disciplinary expertise to be able to solve complex issues. AI today is optimized for specific fields and tasks but when it comes to solving problems that span multiple disciplines such as Tax, Legal and Finance, the current solutions are not yet capable of providing meaningful advice and guidance. Grant Thornton is already working with various AI partners on this issue and targets to be a very early adopter of the next iteration of AI that addresses this,” he said. 

The AI wishlist

Many firms hoped that the next generation of AI solutions would address these sorts of problems in a way that will allow them to become true assistants capable of taking on complex tasks that require extensive judgment. 

“We have found that AI currently lacks in the ability to replicate human creativity and complex decision-making. While AI excels at data analysis and task automation, it struggles with tasks requiring creativity and nuanced judgment. If AI could offer more sophisticated support in areas such as accounting and audit services, its value and impact in our daily lives would be significantly enhanced,” said Jim Meade, CEO of top 50 firm LBMC. 

Desai, from Eisner Amper, also pointed out that AI isn’t very good at handling bad data, which is a problem considering that AIs run on data. This means that using AI effectively today still requires a great deal of data processing and sanitation to make information useful. If humans did not need to do so much manual cleanup to get data AI-ready, it would help make the technology even more efficient.  

“One of the biggest gaps in AI today is its limited ability to handle bad data. Since data is the foundation of any AI strategy, it’s a challenge that most organizations still face— dealing with messy, inconsistent, or unstructured data. We wish AI could do more to identify, fix, and improve data quality automatically, instead of relying so much on manual cleanup,” said Desai. 

Finally, Avani Desai, CEO of top 50 firm Schellman, said that AI needs to not only be safer, it needs to be visibly so, as trust and confidence in the technology is often key to adoption. 

“I wish that AI could de-risk itself so that clients would be more open to using it and build client trust. If AI could more clearly demonstrate safety and responsible use, adoption would be much easier. Once people understand it’s here to help—and learn to use it responsibly—the fear will fade,” she said. 

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