Audit and finance skills are heavily in demand for corporate board members, according to a recent survey.
BDO’s 2024 Board Survey polled 249 corporate directors of public company boards in July and August and found that 27% of respondents said the top skill set for directors in 2025 is audit/finance.
“It was tied actually with cybersecurity as a skill set, and then just behind technology implementation and industry specialization, as well as corporate strategy,” said Amy Rojik, national managing principal for corporate governance of BDO USA. “I think this reflects several things that are important to public companies, in particular the heightened focus of stakeholders, especially regulators and investors, on the need for high-quality and reliable financial information and disclosures to aid in investment decisions. We all know that regulators are heavily pushing for transparency and disclosures across the board, and in particular with respect to financial accounting and reporting disclosures, along with important oversight responsibilities, particularly in increasing risk areas like cybersecurity where breaches can really have a material impact on a company’s financial condition.”
The survey asked the board members what they believe are the greatest near-team opportunities for generative AI, and 11% cited finance and accounting.
“Anecdotally, the top three board education continuing education topics that we get asked to provide to the board are generative AI, cybersecurity and enterprise risk management,” said Rojik. “Those by far are the most requested things that, especially with the audit committee, we’re seeing as a topic of conversation that they want to dive deeper into. I find that very encouraging because it’s across the board.”
Some 17% of the survey respondents indicated that advancing the use of emerging technology is a top strategic priority, while lagging implementation of emerging technology (27%) is a top-cited risk. At the same time, a slight majority of directors (51%) indicated they plan to increase investment in emerging technology, while 41% intend to increase investment in cybersecurity, data privacy and governance over the next year.
Generative AI has become a governance focus, with directors pursuing use cases and working to mitigate a wide array of risks. Approximately one third of directors (31%) selected customer experience (16%) or product/service development (15%) as the greatest opportunity for generative AI.
Rojik pointed to a recent spotlight report from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board on how auditing firms and financial statement preparers are using AI.
“It’s probably more at the forefront, where we’re probably on the audit side preparing more administrative documents or initial drafts of memos and presentations and researching internal accounting and auditing guidance,” she said. “Preparers may be doing something similar, maybe summarizing accounting standards and interpretations, and benchmarking company information. And then some are even using generative AI to assist in the performance of less complex and repetitive processes, such as preparing account recs or identifying reconciling items. I think the potential investments that companies are looking forward to are summarizing accounting policy and legal documents, evaluating completeness of audit documentation against relevant documentation requirements, performing risk assessment procedures and scoping the audit.”
But data privacy and security remain important factors, she added. Firms need to be careful about client information being loaded into a generative AI-enabled tool, who is allowed to use those types of tools on the audit, what level of staff, and where the supervision is in those models.
“There’s still, fortunately for all of us, a very high human element of supervision and review to make sure this is all making sense and that we understand what’s going into these models that we’re exploring and what’s coming out has integrity,” said Rojik. “We have a long way to go on both sides of that, from an audit perspective and from a financial reporting perspective. I would say with confidence every audit firm is looking at how to do that, but they’re also looking at it from a lens of how the regulators are going to monitor, enforce and regulate that. There’s more to come in that space certainly, but that’s a huge area to keep an eye on for boards.”
The survey also included data on committee allocation for audit, and found 57% of the public company board respondents have an audit committee and serve on it, while 43% have an audit committee and do not serve on it, and 0% do not have an audit committee.
The audit committee and others are confronting risks from technology and the economy.
“Organizations are really considering where they should be allocating risks, especially emerging risks, and so we’re taking a look at their traditional board structures in terms of the committee allocations,” said Rojik. “Is the audit committee the right committee to put all these emerging risks in? Should there be special committees of the board, or should there be separate committees? Several of our clients have recently instituted separate technology committees, or technology innovation committees. Some, especially financial institutions of a certain size, are required to have risk committees. The most important thing boards can be doing, though, is looking at how they’re putting together that allocation through their charters and other documents that hold them accountable, and then looking at how regulators are viewing the required disclosures.”
In a case involving phony documents and unpaid taxes, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based accountant pleaded guilty last week for making false statements on a mortgage application after failing to file IRS returns.
A certified public accountant with expertise on tax compliance and due diligence matters, Timothy Trifilo has held partner or managing director positions at several firms for over four decades. He also taught courses in taxation and real estate as an adjunct professor, the original Department of Justice indictment said. Trifilo was hired as a managing director with consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal earlier this year.
The fraud allegations resulted from a 2023 purchase, when Trifilo applied for a $1.4 million mortgage on a Washington property. When the unidentified issuing bank advised that they could not locate recent tax returns nor approve his application without them, Trifilo submitted copies of 2021 and 2022 IRS filings to the lender, who then originated the loan.
Investigators later discovered that, in reality, Trifilo had neither filed returns nor paid taxes for any year beginning in 2012 despite income over the subsequent decade totaling more than $7.7 million. His annual earnings ranged between $636,051 and $948,252 during that time, amounts that required him to file individual tax returns each year.
On documentation delivered to the lender in support of the mortgage application, a former colleague of Trifilo was identified as responsible for preparing, reviewing and signing the falsified returns purportedly submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.
“This individual did not prepare the returns, has never prepared tax returns for Trifilo and did not authorize Trifilo to use his name on the returns and other documents that Trifilo submitted,” a DOJ press release said.
A grand jury originally indicted Trifilo in September on seven counts, including bank fraud and failure to file tax returns, as well as aggravated identity theft. His actions led to a tax loss for the IRS of $2.1 million.
He faces a maximum sentence of three decades in prison for defrauding the lender, as well as one year for failure to file tax returns. Sentencing is scheduled for May 19.
In addition to potential prison time, Trifilo may be required to forfeit the original loan amount and property acquired through bank fraud, the original indictment stated. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties and restitution.
Attorneys from the DOJ’s tax division prosecuted the case, with evidence based on findings from the IRS criminal investigation unit.
Submission of phony forms and documents have played a role in multiple fraud cases this year, pointing to a pain point in the mortgage process that could end up costing lenders. Problems in income and employment data specifically had a defect rate of 37.01% to lead all underwriting categories between March and June this year, according to Aces Quality Management. The number surged from 23.42% in the first quarter.
The American Institute of CPAs is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recently adopted standard on firm and engagement metrics, arguing they would drive smaller firms out of the auditing business and affect companies large and small.
The PCAOB voted to adopt the standard last month, along with a related standard on firm reporting, but the new rules still need to be approved by the SEC before they become official and take effect. Under the new rules, PCAOB-registered public accounting firms that audit one or more issuers that qualify as an accelerated filer or large accelerated filer would be required to publicly report specified metrics relating to such audits and their audit practices. The PCAOB made some changes from the originally proposed rules to accommodate some of the objections from the audit industry and public companies, but they remain far reaching in scope. The AICPA argues that the rules would affect more than just accelerated filers and large accelerated filers and could harm smaller companies and their auditors as well. Under SEC rules, accelerated filers are companies that have a public float of between $75 million and $700 million, annual revenues of $100 million or more, and have filed periodic reports and an annual report within the past year. Larger accelerated filers have a public float of $700 million or more. The AICPA expressed caution soon after the PCAOB voted to approve the new standards, but said it was still studying it. Now it is coming out firmly against the new rules and urging the SEC to reject them.
“Alternative approaches that better balance transparency, cost, and the needs of audit committees, while continuing to support the quality of audit services and choice of audit providers available to perform public company audits and serve the public interest should be pursued, rather than introducing potentially detrimental unproven regulations,” the AICPA said in a comment letter to the SEC.
The AICPA argues the new rules would hurt U.S. capital markets as well as the investing public, in addition to auditing firms of all sizes.
“We believe these rules will have unintended negative consequences, including driving small and medium-sized firms out of the public company auditing practice,” said AICPA comment letter. “This would result in fewer firms performing audits which are critically important for smaller and medium size companies seeking to access the U.S. capital markets. Consequently, companies will face greater challenges and higher costs in meeting necessary audit requirements to access to the U.S. capital markets. The PCAOB acknowledges that mid-sized and smaller accounting firms serving small to mid-sized public companies will incur substantial, if not prohibitive, costs in complying with the proposed amendments. The final rules reaffirm the PCAOB’s belief that the rules will disproportionately affect smaller firms.”
The AICPA contends it’s overly simplistic to believe the impact of the rules would mostly fall within the market for large accelerated filers.“Smaller audit firms often serve clients of varying sizes, and their departure from the broader public company audit market could result in a substantial loss of audit firm options, particularly for smaller, less complex accelerated filers,” said the AICPA. “The loss of competition and the reduction in available audit firms could lead to higher costs and less favorable engagement terms for these smaller issuers. A landscape in which smaller issuers have fewer options contradicts the PCAOB’s goal of promoting fair competition.”
The AICPA disputes the claim by proponents of the new rules that competition may increase in the non-accelerated filer audit market as firms exit the accelerated filer and large accelerated filer markets. “This fails to account for the fact that non-accelerated filers often rely on firms with specific expertise and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “Further, the firms exiting the accelerated filer space may not be able to effectively redeploy their capacity to the non-accelerated filer market. In fact, their exit could lead to a loss of specialized services and a further concentration of resources in the larger end of audit firms, making it harder for non-accelerated filers to secure high-quality, affordable audits.”
The AICPA disagrees with predictions that profitable firms in the larger audit markets could expand their market share against the Big Four. “The resources required to absorb and integrate such capacity are substantial, and many firms may not have the operational flexibility to do so without significant strain on their existing clients and resources,” said the AICPA comment letter. “This further risks driving up audit costs for smaller and mid-sized issuers, which are often less agile and unable to absorb such change without significant disruption.”
The Institute is also concerned about the use of performance metrics within the PCAOB’s inspection and enforcement program, and how they might drive up the risk of enforcement for minor, unintentional reporting errors. It said the PCAOB rejected calls for a threshold based on the severity of reporting errors. The PCAOB declined a request for comment.
Aiwyn, a provider of technology solutions for accountants and CPA firms, has closed a $113 million funding round.
The money will help the company continue its evolution from its original focus on payments and collections for accounting firms into a more comprehensive tool for practice management.
Among other things, that will include building a universal client experience portal, where accountants can access all of their engagements in one place.
The funding will also be used to accelerate product development on both the company’s practice management platform, and on a tax solution that it is working on.
“Aiwyn is committed to empowering CPA firms to elevate their operations and client relationships,” said chairman and CEO Justin Adams, in a statement. “With this investment, we are poised to redefine how firms manage their operations from the CRM to the general ledger, while setting a new benchmark for client experiences. For too long, firms have had to decide between a legacy vendor or modern point solutions. We are proud that Aiwyn is a trusted platform for CPA firms.”
The round was led by global investment firm KKR and Bessemer Venture Partners. KKR is funding this investment primarily from its Next Generation Technology III Fund.
“The accounting industry represents a large market that has long been served by legacy players. Aiwyn is solving a clear functionality gap in the market with a solution that is easily adopted and rapidly delivers tangible enhancements to the customer experience, most noticeably through significant reductions in days sales outstanding,” said Jackson Hart, a principal on KKR’s technology growth team, in a statement.
“Aiwyn’s product suite is already quite impressive, but the company is really just getting started on its quest to deliver compelling technology to the accounting industry,” added Bessemer partner Jeremy Levine, in a statement.
Cooley LLP served as legal advisor to Aiwyn; Latham & Watkins LLP served as legal advisor to KKR; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP served as legal advisor to Bessemer.