Connect with us

Accounting

Closing accounting firms’ Client Readiness Gap

Published

on

Across advisory, audit, and tax, two performance metrics define success: Was the engagement completed on time? And was it delivered within budget?

Unfortunately, more than 30% of engagements struggle to meet these basic benchmarks. This is true across the board — at the Big Four, the Top 100, midsized and small firms — and spans all practice areas. It’s a remarkably consistent finding, and it has significant implications that ripple outward as one engagement runs into the next, disrupting staffing, sparking billing disputes, lowering realization, and straining client relationships.

There are many reasons why engagements go off track. There isn’t one single cause that explains 100% of all circumstances. However, our recent research into this pervasive problem reveals that there is one reason that stands out as the primary driver — one cause that explains the vast majority of troubled engagements — and that’s what we call the Client Readiness Gap. It’s the top challenge facing the accounting profession, and firms must address it to significantly improve efficiency, profitability, and client satisfaction now and in the years ahead. 

What is the Client Readiness Gap?

Simply put, the Client Readiness Gap is the struggle firms experience in collecting and validating all the necessary information from their clients to complete engagements efficiently. This problem sounds simple and straightforward, but it’s pervasive and pernicious for several reasons. To understand why, it is helpful to examine how engagements unfold in practice.

Every engagement involves dozens — if not hundreds or even thousands — of individual requests to clients for pieces of information. The likelihood that a client will respond correctly and completely to any one of those individual requests the first time is less than 40%. That means that nearly two-thirds of the time, when a client responds to a request, they provide incomplete or incorrect information that requires clarification and follow-up. And the challenge doesn’t stop there.

Even after a client uploads information, an accountant often can’t immediately determine precisely what’s missing or incorrect in that information until they move it out of the client collaboration environment and into their actual workpapers or testing systems. It’s not until then that errors are usually discovered, and when the back and forth with the client finally begins. 

At this stage, accountants are now forced to work across disconnected systems because legacy testing environments are inherently non-collaborative. Following up with clients involves switching platforms, taking screenshots, and manually marking up documents, among other tasks. All of these things cause significant delays and frequent miscommunication. That’s where inefficiency and frustration multiply.

This gap doesn’t just delay the start of an engagement. It stalls progress throughout the entire process. Incomplete documentation, late responses, back-and-forth emails, and engagement teams waiting instead of working may all seem like isolated issues, but they are all fractures that contribute to the Client Readiness Gap and compound over time.

Why should firms care about closing the gap?

Closing the Client Readiness Gap is about protecting a firm’s bottom line and future revenue. Firms are losing billable time to this gap. In a profession where time is the primary unit of value, this loss is unsustainable. More importantly, it’s preventable.

Firms also don’t have the hours or staff to spare. When engagements drag due to incomplete data or repeated back and forth, the firm pays the price in absorbed hours, missed targets, and disrupted schedules. Closing the gap helps eliminate those inefficiencies at the source, unlocking engagement team capacity, improving realization, and ultimately making everyone happier.

No one wants engagements to run long or over budget, but the process that firms rely on today practically guarantees that result. The disconnect between intention and outcome signals a broken process, and it also represents the greatest and most immediate opportunity for growth. Firms that intentionally close the Client Readiness Gap will protect their margins while also enhancing the client experience and positioning themselves for growth and scalability.

To close the Client Readiness Gap, firms must take several key steps.

First, they need to recognize that the gap is the single greatest challenge they face. There are many areas where firms can improve, but many of these improvements are distractions with minimal payback. Nothing will result in greater efficiency and satisfaction improvements for the firm and its clients than addressing the gap. It needs to be priority number one.

Second, firms need to recognize that client collaboration goes well beyond the “portal” or “request” phase of an engagement. Collaboration is central to every step of the engagement and needs to be optimized and integrated throughout the entire process.

Third, firms need to align with partners who have a clear vision and roadmap to assist them in closing the gap. They need to learn from and leverage the expertise of industry leaders who are solving these problems at scale.

The Client Readiness Gap won’t close itself. It will require bold leadership to reimagine how firms engage with their clients. We’re already seeing these leaders emerge, and they’re setting a new standard for accounting engagements. In doing so, they consistently answer “Yes” to the two questions that determine an engagement’s success: Was it on time, and was it on budget?

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