Connect with us

Accounting

Art of Accounting: Analysis of Top 100 Firms data

Published

on

Public accounting is a vibrant and strong profession and also a business.

The following is some data I abstracted from the Accounting Today March 2025 listing of the Top 100 Firms with my take on what they indicate.

top-100-firms-data.png

The totals are revealing, but I wanted to see how the smaller firms are faring against the larger firms. When I did my analysis, I decided there are three groupings that make sense in providing a better picture of the Top 100. I broke the firms into the Big Four, which are a totally different world than the others and whose numbers distort the results for the Top 100. I then distinguished the next group of practices with over $1 billion in revenues last year, and there were 12 such firms. The balance is made up of the remaining 84 firms. While the firms in each group varied greatly, I believe the information shown provides interesting information that can be used to better measure the firm’s performance and back up some of the conclusions I reached.

The revenues of the Big Four were 69% and the next group 24% of the total. This left the remaining 84 firms with 12% of the total. The partners in the Big Four represented 5% of their total personnel, while for the next 12 it was about 8.7% and the remaining 84 it was 10.7%. This indicates that the 12 firms with over a billion in revenues had a partner-to-staff ratio much closer to smaller 84 than the larger Big Four. I also came up with the revenues per partner in my chart, and there were gigantic differences in the three groups, but with the 12 much closer to the smaller group. This makes sense with the much smaller numbers of partners in the Big Four. I don’t think the number of offices is a significant measure, except the larger firms would have more offices than the smaller ones. The ground rules for the rankings and details are in the March 2025 Accounting Today report.

The breakout of the total employees was fully proportionate with the revenues for all groups, indicating a relationship between the number of employees and the revenues. While the revenue per partner was significantly greater for the Big Four, the revenue per employee was not considerably different. The Big Four was a little over $7,000 per employee greater than the group of 12, and that group was about 10% greater than the remaining 84. I view this as a pricing, cost and efficiency measure. Considering the much greater size of the top two groups, I do not see the smaller firms doing badly in this regard. 

One reason why this may be so could be that the larger practices have a higher pay scale with greater benefits, more costly layers of management and review, and the pressure of containing fees on the more traditional services of auditing and tax compliance. Also, in smaller firms, many of the client relationship partners perform higher-level tax and audit planning and review in place of spending a great deal of their time managing the client relationships. I know many smaller firms are more focused on providing added high-value advisory service that the larger firms treat as added product lines with the same built-in infrastructure costs they have for the audit and tax compliance. 

All three groups perform the same general percentage of A&A work while the Big Four perform, as a percentage of their total services, much lower tax work. I added the MAS, CAS and other services together as different firms report these differently. In doing so, the Big Four run away with this, but the smaller grouping is outperforming the Next 12 group. It would seem that the group of 12 would be mimicking the Big Four in the nontraditional services, but instead they are behind the smaller group. Since private equity is entering the playing field, they might see opportunities in the growth of advisory services, but it may be that the existing partner group is performing to the best of their ability and perhaps that opportunity does not exist. I know partners and senior staff in many firms in the 96, and the really successful partners are supercharged with focused experience in niche areas, making them “go-to” people commanding top fees and a flood of referrals. These people are really great and, because they are with smaller practices, they generate a higher proportion of the revenue for their firms. The Big Four compete with large advisory firms and that squeezes fees, while the “experts” in the smaller practices literally have no serious competition regarding their pricing.

The numbers I came up with present a lot of questions. I’ve alluded to some of them, and I am sure readers will have more. That is a benefit of analyzing aggregate data and breaking it down. I have been doing this my entire career and have developed great relationships with my clients.

A further observation about the Top 100 numbers is that the average revenues of the bottom five (No. 96 to 100) are $64.5 million and the total employees are 312. I do not want to pass any judgment with these numbers but wish to point out that while these are substantial accounting practices, they are relatively small businesses. I averaged the five firms since the 100th on the list appears to be an outlier with much fewer employees. The Accounting Today report includes a listing of 45 “Beyond the Top 100: Firms to Watch.” The last firm on that list has revenues of $38 million with 170 employees, an even smaller business. It is believed that public accounting comprises about 45,000 firms, with about a couple hundred being large businesses. I see this as an opportunity for smaller firms to grow while limiting opportunities for larger firms to grow organically.

I hope you find the above interesting and have followed the process I used to look beyond the chart and come up with helpful observations. This process can be easily applied to your business clients.

Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] with your practice management questions or about engagements you might not be able to perform.

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

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

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

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending