Connect with us

Accounting

Is PE right for you?

Published

on

Koltin PE podcast screen.jpg

Private equity is a solution to many accounting firm problems — but not for all accounting firms. Allan Koltin of Koltin Consulting Group dives into who might be a good fit for PE, and what they can expect if they do.

Transcription:

Transcripts are generated using a combination of speech recognition software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio for the authoritative record.

Dan Hood (00:04):
Welcome to On the Air with Accounting. Today, I’m editor-in-chief Dan Hood. As hot topics in accounting go, it doesn’t get much more incandescent these days than private equity, but in a lot of discussions of PE, there’s often a lot more heat than light. So here to shed some light on private equity and what it means for accounting firms is Allan Koltin. He’s the CEO of the Koltin Consulting Group. He’s advised on and seen the insides of many of the most prominent PE deals in the field, and in many ways, he’s the guy who introduced private equity to accounting and vice versa. Allan, thanks for joining us.

Allan Koltin (00:33):
Dan. Thank you so much. Great to be with you again.

Dan Hood (00:36):
Yeah, I should also mention that you are a co-chair of our PE Summit, which is happening on November 20 to 21st in Chicago. So if you like what you hear over the next 20, 25 minutes, Allan will be there to talk more. And if you don’t show up for the rest of the sessions because it’s going to be good stuff, there’s going to be a lot of PE firms and accounting firms and deal makers and advisors to help answer more of the questions that we’re not going to be able to get to today.

Allan Koltin (00:59):
I can jump in on that one. If you don’t mind. You better hurry up and get a seat before it’s sold out. I mean, I just want our StubHub and the prices are off. It’s like Taylor Swift’s coming to town only. It’s Dan Hood coming to Chicago,

Dan Hood (01:12):
And we will not honor scalped tickets. This is a Billy Joel type approach to things. We keep all the best seats reserved so that the scalpers can’t get ’em, but yeah, no, it is actually, it’s a good point. It is. Spaces are filling up, so make sure you get yours. It’s going to be a great event. And this is in many ways our talk today is going to be a little bit of a preview of that, right? Because as I said, you’re one of our co-chairs and you’re going to be talking there and sharing your wisdom, but here we want to get a little preview of that, and I kind of want to start with what may be a very basic question, but that’s what kind of accounting firms, when we talk about coming into the accounting profession, what kind of accounting firms should be thinking about working with private equity? What problems is PE looking to solve and what, so the firms are looking at ’em saying, Hey, I’ve got this problem or this issue, or I want to do this. Which ones make it right to talk to pe?

Allan Koltin (02:00):
So not everything comes in one size. There’s different wants and needs. I think a firm that has a great story to tell that needs capital to take their business to the next level, whether that’s the transformation of the services, it’s the technology platform. It’s a better way to attract, retain, and grow talent if they’ve got strong organic growth. PE loves organic growth. If they have great leadership, if they’re uber profitable, all of those things are on the, what I call marriage checklist of private equity. What they’re not looking for is to fix a problem of a firm that isn’t that good. When you look at all the deals that have happened now, and what is it, it’s been three years, three months and three days.

(02:55):

Most of those firms, as the saying goes, cleared customs. They were ranked by accounting today as the best place to work. They were ranked as a fast growing profitable firm. They’re on the accounting today. What’s the thing you do with the managing partners? The elite? Oh, the MP Elite. Sure, the MP elite. It’s a lot of best in class firms, and if they don’t do private equity, it doesn’t mean they’re not best in class. They’re still best in class. There’s not a one size fits all. So the opposite of what I’m saying is firms that aren’t profitable probably should take a pass because as you know, when you dummy this down, the way they come up with the enterprise value is they’re taking a portion of your compensation, you’re turning it over, it’s called excess profitability, and you’re creating NewCo and you’re getting rollover equity in a new business. If you’re not uber profitable, it’s not going to work. And oftentimes the PE firm will call me and say, Hey, Allan, we’re going to bow out on this firm because we went through their numbers and they think quartiles, they’re in the bottom quartile, they’re in the bottom. 50% of earnings per partner,

(04:10):

Probably not going to work.

Dan Hood (04:12):
So that comes to some of that’s that issue of right of people tend to think whatever a partner takes home is whatever they take home, but it’s really, it’s two things, right? A depart takes home a salary or whatever you want to call it, a draw, whatever, and then they also take home sort of retained earnings from the overall firm and with a PE deal, those are usually split out. I mean, that’s sort of what we’re talking about here is

Allan Koltin (04:30):
Frame that it might be so easy just to take a $20 million firm. Let’s say that their EBITDA is 15% of 20 million, that’s $3 million. Let’s say they’re in a great fast growing market. They have great talent, great leadership, all those things. A firm like that in a competitive process today is probably going to trade at a eight to nine multiple, and there’s exceptions to everything, but that firm could be worth 27 a million dollars, and usually half of that is going to be paid as cash and close. The other half though is going to be for the most part, called rollover equity. And what we as accountants just struggle to get our arms around is that other 50%, that 13 point and a half million of equity, their projection is in five years, that’s going to be worth five times that number. But if you take five times 13 and a half, that’s 60.

(05:39):

I can’t do math anymore. 67 and a half million plus the first 13, that’s an $80 million deal for a $20 million firm, and I know when you hear the following, when it sounds too good to be true, it usually isn’t. Well, three years, three months, three days into this thing, it’s more true than not. So they’re looking to get best in class firms. That’s what they’re looking for. If you’re not profitable, if you haven’t grown in decades, if you’re a lot of old partners whose better days have passed and you’re maybe in a market that’s just not growing, don’t even think about it.

Dan Hood (06:21):
Gotcha. Well, this is one of those things that’s worth always worth pointing out because I think even in the regular old fashioned m and a world of accounting, there were lots of firms that just said, well, we’ll just merge on the assumption that someone really wanted to come in and hand them a bunch of money to solve their problems. That I think that’s, so it’s worth pointing these things out because a lot of firms think, well, this is a solution for me, but it’s only a solution for you if it also works for the other side of the deal, right? If it works for the pe,

Allan Koltin (06:47):
Yeah, the economics are so superior to the world. We know that that’s what everybody locks in on, but you always have to remind the firm, look, there’s three boxes and you got to check every box, the cultural fit. You’re happy now. So if you’re going to go into a place where you’re miserable or you’re not going to feel like the entrepreneur, don’t do it. The second box is the strategic fit. It’s the one that is the most important, I believe, because why combining us and them together, everybody says one plus one is three. How’s about one plus one equals 11? What can we achieve together that maybe we could achieve on our own, but it’s going to take a lot longer. So you have to check the cultural box simultaneous to checking the strategic box, simultaneous to checking the economic box, and it’s a multiple choice question. Then the answer is D, all of the above, but these are partnerships and you’ve written one of the best articles you ever put out I think, is that this functionality, the partnership model in a 10 partner, $20 million firm, anyone can say no, but sometimes no one can say yes.

Dan Hood (08:06):
Well, I mean, I want to dive a little further on that. There’s sort of, as we say, firms are looking at it and not necessarily realizing that there’s expectations from the other side. Are there other things that accounting firms don’t know about deals that they should be thinking about? Are there aspects of ’em that often come as a surprise maybe to the firms you’re talking to?

Allan Koltin (08:23):
Yeah, and I want to be real careful on this because there’s just like, there’s great accounting firms and there’s good accounting firms, and there’s some, you sort of shake your head the beauty of public accounting, as long as you don’t do a bad auditor tax return, you can stay around for a long time, right? You just may not be a high performing firm for various reasons. I think private equity is very similar. There’s ones out there where they say, look, we have a day job. We don’t want to micromanage the crap out of you. We’re betting on your leadership. We’re a resource enabler. If you need capital, if you’ve got strategic questions about how to take your business to the next level, we’re really good at that, but we’re not looking to run a daycare center now, that’s one side of the ledger. There’s other PE firms. You know what? You’re giving up control. You work for the boss and they’re going to manage everything you do, and as the old saying goes, they’re spreadsheet junkies with Ivy League education, so they’re wicked smart. That doesn’t mean they’re not nice people, but as I advise my CPA firm sellers, if you’re thinking something but you’re not sure, don’t ask the question because if you ask private equity a question, it lends itself to a spreadsheet and an analysis, so leave it on a need to know.

Dan Hood (09:54):
Now, I think for some accounting firms, some accountants will say, well, that sounds great. I like a spreadsheet, but I think they use spreadsheets in a very different way than

Allan Koltin (10:04):
To answer your question about what the accounting firm needs to know, this is different than accounting firm on accounting firm. When we do due diligence, the accounting firm, an accounting firm deal, we’re making sure they actually do audits. We’re making sure they do tax returns, that it’s quality. It goes through a process. There’s a control over client acceptance. The people actually get along. They like each other. They have a great culture. Integration planning is technology. It’s the time and billing system. It’s the tax and audit software. When you go to due diligence with a PE firm, they bring in the outside third party, an independent firm that is going to kick the craft out of the numbers,

Dan Hood (10:49):
And

Allan Koltin (10:50):
They’re going to challenge the assumption we made in signing an LOI, which was proceeded by the IOI to me, which is sort of a back of a napkin at a high level. It’s like a compilation in accounting. We took information you gave, we put it together, we put our name on it here.

(11:08):

So the first sort of customs you have to clear is to get your partners on board that they’re willing to go for change and a lot don’t want to change. The second is we’re going to ask for blood. We’re going to ask for money. You’re comp, you have to give something to the cause, and some even have a menu for every dollar you give. Here’s what you, it’s the first cut of beef, here’s what you get back, and if you’re still standing after that, then you got to go through this Q of E, this due diligence where they’re going to look at every single piece of information they get their hands on and they may come back to you and reduce the offer.

(11:50):

Well, you said it was 3 million of EBITDA. We think it’s to which the managing partner says, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait, I already got the bullets. My partners have their deal sheets. They’ve already spent the money. They bought the house. You can’t reverse this. Some call this re-trading, some call it bait and switch. I don’t know that any of these firms intentionally do that because I think reputationally, they’d become known as those firms and people would stay away from them. And then you get, if you’re still standing after all that, the fourth Libra you have to clear is the partnership agreement is silent on the sale of a business. How do we allocate it? Is there an ownership structure? Does capital matter if there isn’t? Are we taking one’s comp divided by the total comp? Are we looking at seniority years of service? And all too often the answer is yes, all of the, so some have a very specific allocation mechanism and some don’t. We call it blue ocean, it’s the wild west. Let’s go figure it out. And then sometimes even though we have a specific cap table, it would give to disproportionate a number to maybe some of the founders or exiting people, and we have to sort of coerce them a bit to give something back, make this good for all

Dan Hood (13:19):
I, all of that’s going to be right. Every firm’s going to be different in terms of how those deals work in terms of the numbers that they’ve got, their numbers, and then the numbers that the PE firm’s due diligence turns up. But then also their structure and their cap table and all that sort of stuff is

Allan Koltin (13:33):
At the end, it’s a chain letter. It’s almost like the accounting firm has to help the private equity firm, the people leading the engagement from the P firm, they then have to take it to their investment committee and get approval there, and then the investment committee is going to take it and they may have other limited partners coming in. So in anticipation of that, they ask every question you can ever imagine. I remember sitting in a meeting with, call it a top 15 firm, and the PE firm was asking questions about 2008, what happened in 2009 and 10? And we’re like, really? Well, there was a recession, right? I said, oh, no, no, no. We know that We just have to be able to answer the question in case somebody asked. So I would’ve thought there’s a statute of limitations, like if you want to go back three years, I’m fine, but 5, 10, 15, come on.

Dan Hood (14:33):
Right?

Allan Koltin (14:33):
Lucky it was a bad time for everybody. Let’s not get into

Dan Hood (14:36):
It. Well, I mean a lot of these things, what you point to, you talk about that one person is going to look at as bait and switch. Another person just looks at as this is our due diligence process. PE firms do this all the time kind of thing. And I think that’s an interesting thing to bear in mind for accounting firms is that when you merge with another accounting firm, even though they may be very different, they may be much larger, they may be call more successful, but they may be bigger and have all kinds of other things going on. They may be somewhat different from you, but they’re still an accounting firm. Whereas when you’re merging or selling to a private equity firm, they’re an entirely different industry with an entirely different set of norms. And it’s fascinating because I’m curious about this, and this is what want to go into for my next question is how does this, when you’re working with an accounting firm, you merge up, you expect to still be working kind.

(15:26):

It was an accounting firm. You don’t expect big changes. Your tech may change, some other things may change, but by and large, you’re still working for an accounting firm. How does it change when an accounting firm gets bought by a PE firm? I’ll give you an example of the sort of things we talk a lot of people about. They talk about the alternative practice structure where they’re splitting up the firm into a test and non attest, and the vast majority of firms you talk to will say the day after that happens, no one notices it. Everyone goes to the same offices. They work in the same way, they report to the same people. It’s basically a paper change. It doesn’t change anybody’s day to day, but there’s got to be some aspects of these deals that do change people’s day to day, whether it’s the change in compensation for the partners, some of it’s now equity, so your take home should be significantly different. What are the kinds of changes are there that an accounting firm that makes a deal should expect?

Allan Koltin (16:14):
Yeah, and Dan, it’s a great question. I would say for the line, the typical line partner that’s not in senior leadership, 92% of the world they knew before is going to be the same world after they suit up every day. They try to bring in business, they try to serve and own clients. They try to be technically razor sharp to be productive, to grow people. I mean, they were doing that before and they’re doing that after the senior leadership is probably the ones that deal directly with private equity. And there’s going to be a bit of a culture change in terms of budgets are no longer soft. Budgets are real. We set a number and we expect to get to the number, and we’re going to be doing continual check-ins on how we’re doing, what are the action steps, what are the integration things we should be doing to achieve that goal? There’s more discipline, as we like to say, we’re going to run the play that’s called. And for some, if they don’t really digest that coming in, it’s a little bit of a shock to the system.

(17:22):

So there’s a structural change, but the reality is everybody is still one big family. It’s no different than when you had a wealth management business in an accounting firm. It had to be a separate legal entity. It could be an RIA, it could be a broker dealer. I’ve got a separate set of business cards. The engagement letters are unique to that entity. The way we bonus people out or the way we allocate compensation is different. It’s a new entity. So I don’t want to use the term overrated, but I think when people are sort of new to understanding this, they immerse themselves in the alternative practice structure. And you say, look, they were doing audits before. They’re still doing audits after I feel the structure, which is over 25 years old and there’s never been a material breach because of the structure, good audit gone bad. For me, it’s a simple thing. When integrity meets economics, there’s integrity Trump economics, and when I talked to the CEOs of the LLPs that run the audit business, no one was going to tell them to look the other way in the old days when they had their firm, and no one’s going to tell ’em to look away in the new days until something happens. I’ll lean in that really integrity of the audit leader and their core values drive everything.

Dan Hood (18:53):
I mean, that’s an important thing. I mean, we’ve heard Barry Melanson, the AICPA has talked a little bit about this and sort of said, it’s really important that we make sure that stays because there’s no reason for PE to that industry has not been based on those public mission, public integrity questions. So it’s important for accounting firms to remind them of keep that front and center. But it sounds, as you say, it sounds like it hasn’t been a problem. Just something to keep in mind going forward. And I will say, I think, again, this isn’t to make PE deals sound bad or anything like that, but as you say, that accountability that comes with it, accounting firms are famous as we talked about, the problem with the partners, right? Famous for not being able to hold each other accountable. So when they find that someone else is more than happy to hold them accountable, I say it might be a little bit of a shock, at least at first.

Allan Koltin (19:43):
I’m trying to articulate so I can give a specific example. I think in the old days, if you want to join a country club, if you want to go golf, if you want to belong to some young CEO group or whatever it is, you just sort of did it. You were a partner, you had this entitlement up to a point to do what you want. Now you got to sort of prove point of purchase. Okay, that’s an investment, but what’s the ROI on it and why are we doing this? And they’re not doing it because they don’t trust your judgment. What they’re doing is let’s really put a plan around that to make sure we increase the probability of succeeding on that initiative. What’s the old adage? Ready, aim, fire. Most entrepreneurs and local, regional, even national firms, now it’s fire first. Then we’ll adjust our aim and then we’ll sort of put a plan together. At the end, it’s more process, more systems, more discipline.

Dan Hood (20:46):
But as you say, that’s all about guaranteeing a better outcome. The success levels should increase. So as I say, this is not a bad thing, it’s just something to be aware of.

Allan Koltin (20:55):
I get to serve as sort of the residents shrink with a lot of these larger CEOs and they’ll call me and I’ll look. I’m like, oh my God, it’s 10, 15 minutes and they’re just venting. And I’m like, oh my God, I feel terrible. I feel like I got you into this mess. He goes, whatcha talking about? I said, I don’t know. You sound really frazzling. You sound frustrated. Well, I am. I mean, it’s a whole level of stuff they want to ask and do I go, should we not have done this? He just, are you crazy? Of course we should have done this. It’s just more accountability, more proof of purchase that what we’re going to do is going to stand up.

Dan Hood (21:36):
It’s amazing. It’s fascinating stuff. I want to move away. We’ve been talking a little bit about how deals, what deals will look like, what will the impact will be on firms. I want to take a step back and look at sort of the overall landscape, but first we have to take a quick break. Alright, and we’re back. We’re talking with Allan Koltin, who’s, like I said earlier, in introducing him, he’s been on the inside of huge proportion of the biggest PE deals that we’ve seen and sort of the guy who brought PE into the accounting profession in the first place. We were talking about all the ways it might impact individual firms and the individual partner on their day, but I want to sort of take a step back and look at the profession as a whole and its impact there. You talked a little bit about PE firms going after the cream creme de la creme, right? The top firms, the best firms, the ones that really got their act together. And we, at some point in a different conversation, you had used the metaphor of at some point it’s going to look like the supermarket the day after Thanksgiving, right? The shelves will be bare. Nothing there is that, do you see that approaching a moment where say PE firms go, okay, yeah, you know what? There’s plenty more firms, but these aren’t the ones we want to buy.

Allan Koltin (22:44):
Yeah, so technically I call it Sunday night at the produce section. At the produce. There you go. Okay. Day after Thanksgiving better, but I can’t imagine somebody going to the grocery store the day after Thanksgiving. It’d be two full. Wouldn’t that Maybe the Saturday? I don’t know. Yeah. So the question is, there’s been a lot of what I’ll call low hanging fruit, Uber successful firms over the last three years. I mean, there’ve been over, I don’t know, what do you think over a hundred PE M&A deals. If you add in all the tuck-ins and everything that’s gone on, and then you look at the top 2, 3, 4, 500 list and you say, at what point does the music stop up till now? It’s sort of like the circle of life. They’re repopulating, but at some point there’s going to be a saturation in the market.

(23:41):

At first we had, as you know, the bigs on the bigs, top 25 PE and top 25 accounting. As you know, within the next six months, more than half of those firms will be owned. And I want to be really clear here that there’s going to be some firms that are never going to be owned and they’re going to be uber successful. There’s not one way to run a business, just you may have a different way of creating capital, that’s all. But now you’ve got the middle weights coming in. You’re starting to see some of these deals with firms that are a hundred million to 300 million, and now you’re seeing what I’ll call the welterweights private equity firms coming in, talking to firms of five to 50 million. And as you know, we’ve talked about this. You have on one hand the mothership concept, big firm, get the capital tuck in smaller, but you also have, as I call it, the roll-ups and come join us.

(24:35):

We’re going to be a federation of firms. Ultimately. We’re going to try to bring the band together, but it’s a bit of a softer landing and maybe you’ll have a little more autonomy for some level of time, and it’s a different vibe and it’s working. You got one that’s going to be 300 million already in two years. You got one that’s 165 million. You got two that are going to break the a hundred million. You got another one or two that are going to be 50 million. If I do my accounting today, top 100 math, you’re going to have, oh my gosh, 4, 5, 6 new names on that list as top 100 farms. And we’re just at the beginning of that cycle. So the big difference for me, Dan, is if I think back 25 years ago when the consolidators came in HR block, American Express, even CB to some extent, although they’re the lone survivor, it didn’t really touch the industry that deep. But this one, I believe when we look back on it, it will be deep penetration of many firms. And people say, well, where’s it going in five years? Well, it’s actually, it’s already starting the flip as we call it.

(25:52):

We’ll have our first major one in the next three to six months. We’ll probably have a second one a year after that, what was supposed to be a five to seven year journey. These early precincts, if I can call it, they hit the five to seven year plan in three years. And private equity is saying, you know what? I think we’ll take some chips off the table and do something like that. So when you look at other industries, and this is really important. When you look at insurance brokerage and wealth management and consulting and advisory and outsourcing, the flip, they’re in their third, fourth, fifth flip. That could be 15 to 25 years from now.

(26:33):

It’s hard for us mere mortals as accountants to think beyond that. So we’ve evolved from lab experiments, lab experiment, sort of working lab experiment, really working. Now, here’s the biggest caveat, and I hate to say this because I hate to be a bit of a downer. They’re not all going to be home runs. The first couple ones, maybe they’re grand slam home run, we’ll have some home runs. But if you are betting on firms, and this is whether you’re a mothership firm or a roll-up, and you’re average at best, just putting capital in an average firm’s hands doesn’t transform the asset test is still the same. One great accounting firm with great private equity firm with a great strategy alignment of the spend and investment and alignment of the goals. We’re all in this together. We own the same shares, let’s go do it. I’ll bet on that one all day long. But if there’s a fatal flaw coming in, maybe they have good organic growth, but they’ve never left home, they’ve never tried to expand beyond their geography. Maybe they’ve never done m and a. Maybe the legendary leader is actually in the final year, and can the newbie really take over? Does the next generation have the kind of game that the first generation, so let’s not drink so much of the water that we think every single one of these is going to be a home run. They won’t.

Dan Hood (28:01):
Well, that’s going to be interesting. I’m glad you brought the flip because it is, as you say, it’s coming up soon and there’s a lot of questions about who are they going to sell to. I think the only example I’ve ever heard of anybody in terms of flipping an accounting firm was in Europe, and the vague rumors were that what had happened was they kept half the PE firm kept half their investment and sold the other half to another PE firm. But it’s fascinating. We’re all sort of watching that. What’s going to happen with those flips? Lots of other people who might well be interested in owning a stake in an accounting firm, but don’t have the energy to go out and do what PE firms are doing. We’ve talked in the past about pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, and you can think of lots of other people who would find it an attractive investment to own, but don’t want to go build it themselves.

Allan Koltin (28:50):
Yeah, it’s sort of undefined. I mean, with the alternative practice structure and the ability to bring non CPA ownership, I don’t know, maybe Elon Musk is buying an accounting firm at some point, maybe Microsoft’s getting in, maybe some tech company we’re not even thinking of. I’ve given up trying to predict the future as we’ve talked about every day I get out of bed and what do I say? Never saw that happening, never saw that before. Each day has its own surprise of things we said, not humanly possible, and boom, they happen.

Dan Hood (29:26):
Right, right. Well, with that in mind and fully aware of that caveat that you’ve just given, you talked about 15, 20 years down the road, and no one will hold this to you. We won’t make you responsible for this prediction, but do you have any sort of thoughts PEs long-term role in the profession? I mean, is it going to be around forever or is you talked about the roll-ups of the late 1990s. CBIZ is the only one still around. Well, I guess UHY was one of those first alternative practice structures as well, but by and large, the accounting profession has sort of emerged from that relatively untouched. Do you think, are we looking at a similar thing here, or is it more likely to have had a real serious long-term impact on the field?

Allan Koltin (30:07):
Yeah, so you just asked two questions, Dan. So I’m going to split ’em out because they’re both so important and I’m going to push CBIZ out of the equation because I love CBIZ . But damn, those first five years were not good. There was a stock that was at 18 and all of a sudden it went to one in 2001 and almost got delisted. And today it trades at $70 a share, a mini Wall Street wonder within our profession. Took ’em a lot of years to figure that out. But they did. The others all went away and took losses on the sale. American Express took a loss when they sold the HR block. HR block took a loss when they divested of RSM and R, RSS M brought their firm back. The biggest difference, these PE firms had an approaching, this was one thing, and it’s bigger than anything. Why will this be good for the kids? Why will the 30 and 40-year-old want to do this?

(31:06):

And that’s what’s really playing on the big stage, is those younger kids are saying, if we stay like we are, we’re going to have to come up with the capital. Where does capital come in? An accounting firm? Either go to the bank and borrow the debt and mortgage your house. No one’s doing that. We’re not risk takers like that, but they are going to get the multiple bites of the apple over a period of time. So let’s fast forward 15, 20 years. Annual will be on a beach somewhere drinking mai tais or collecting our Social Security checks and what will look like private equity will still be in, there’ll be bigger private equity. What I will tell you is in the next three to five years, maybe even in the next one to two, some of these will be IPOs. So you will have publicly traded accounting firms. CBIZ won’t be the only one anymore. I would guess if we’re on this call in five, six years, a half dozen accounting firms that are owned will have gone the way of some type of IPO. So the future is beyond imagination. Wow.

Dan Hood (32:21):
But it’s fascinating. I mean, you say CBIZ is sort of an honorable exception all over by itself, but so you have half a dozen of, suddenly that’s, that’s not an exception. That’s a model that people can pick up on. It’s fascinating, as they said, we won’t hold you to that though. I may look at you at the beach and be like, Hey, where’s those IPOs you promised me 20 years ago? But otherwise, it is a fascinating topic. I wish we could talk a lot more about it, but we’re almost out of time. So I want to thank you for coming in and sharing all these insights. It is fascinating stuff, and we look forward to seeing what more to come.

Allan Koltin (32:52):
Dean and thank you. I want to thank you just for being you. I mean, you do so much for this profession. You advance our thought leadership. Anytime I can catch an interview, a podcast, hear you speak, whatever it is, and you’re always thinking, you’re like Wayne Gretzky, you’re not. Where the fuck is, you’re thinking where it’s going to go. And kudos to you and your whole team on everything you do for our profession.

Dan Hood (33:20):
Well, thank you. We appreciate it. Most of what we know we get from talking to folks like you, so it ends up being easy. We just have to listen more than we talk, and that works out well. But also, I would say, again, just a reminder, if everyone wants to hear more of what we’re talking about, more on more from Allan will be in Chicago November 20th and 21st for our Accounting Today PE Summit. We’re going to dive into a lot of topics we talked to today and some we didn’t get a chance to dive into because there’s so many different angles to this issue. But again, you can see Allan there. And for now, thank you again for joining us. We’ll see you hopefully late in November. This episode of On the Air was produced by Accounting Today, ready to review us on your favorite podcast platform and see the rest of our content on accounting today.com. Thanks again to our guest, and thank you for listening.

Continue Reading

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

Staten Island’s Malliotakis open to $30K SALT cap

Published

on

Representative Nicole Malliotakis said increasing the state and local tax deduction cap to $30,000 from $10,000 would reduce the tax burden of the vast majority of people in her district, indicating support for a proposal that is dividing Republicans.

“Every member needs to advocate for the particular needs of their district. Tripling the deduction to $30,000 will provide much-needed relief for the middle-class and cover 98% of the families in my district,” Malliotakis, a Republican representing Staten Island, New York and a member of the House tax committee, said in a statement to Bloomberg News on Friday.

Malliotakis’ nod of approval for a $30,000 SALT deduction cap comes as Republicans are fighting among themselves about how high to increase a tax break that has the potential to scuttle President Donald Trump’s entire tax package.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday said the $30,000 write-off limit is one of several options being discussed. That figure was rejected by several other New York Republicans, including Elise Stefanik, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler and Andrew Garbarino. California’s Young Kim also rebuffed the idea.

Malliotakis’ district has less expensive property values and lower incomes than some of the other lawmakers pushing for a SALT expansion, making it politically viable for her to accept a lower cap than some of her colleagues.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested on Friday that Trump would not weigh in on an appropriate level for a SALT cap, leaving it to lawmakers to resolve.

“There’s a lot of disagreement on Capitol Hill right now about the SALT tax proposal, and we will let them work it out,” she told reporters.

House Republicans’ narrow majority means that Johnson needs to win the support of nearly all his members to pass Trump’s tax-and-spending package. 

Several of the SALT advocates have said that they are willing to block the bill unless there is a sufficient increase to the deduction. However, most members have not publicly stated how high the deduction must be to win their support.

The debate over SALT has proved to be a particularly thorny fight because it is a political priority for a small but vocal group of Republicans representing swing districts critical to the party maintaining a majority in the 2026 midterm elections. 

Expanding the write-off is an expensive proposition, and Republicans have little fiscal wiggle room as they are sparring over ways — including cuts to Medicaid and levy hikes on millionaires — to offset the cost of the tax-cut package.

The House Ways and Means Committee is slated to consider the tax portion of the bill on Tuesday, including SALT changes.

Continue Reading

Accounting

GOP eyes endowment tax hike in escalation of Ivy League feud

Published

on

House Republicans are considering increasing taxes on university endowments, a significant threat to some of the nation’s wealthiest schools as President Donald Trump seeks to tighten control over American higher education.

The measure is in a draft of the tax package Republicans are weighing, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to share details on the effort. The proposal would create a tiered system of taxation so that wealthy colleges and universities pay more as the size of their endowment grows, the people said. 

Republicans are considering boosting the 1.4% endowment tax currently on the books to rates as high as 14% to 21%, a person familiar with the matter said.

The bill is not finalized, however, the people cautioned, and the draft could change as Republicans negotiate its terms, a complex task as the party looks to renew and expand tax breaks and find ways to pay for them with only a narrow House majority.

Targeting university endowments would be a major escalation of Trump’s fight with elite colleges and universities, which has seen the administration demand changes to school policies that reflect his priorities. 

The current tax on private-school endowments ensnares many of the richest universities, like Harvard University and Yale University, as well as smaller elite institutions such as Amherst College and Williams College. Some of the wealthiest private colleges in the country boast endowments of at least $500,000 per student. 

Harvard, in particular, with a $53.2 billion endowment, has been locked in a high-stakes fight with the Trump administration over its demands for changes at the school. Harvard has sued several U.S. agencies and top officials for freezing billions of dollars in federal funding. Trump has also threatened the school’s tax-exempt status, though experts say revoking that designation would be a lengthy process involving the Internal Revenue Service and the courts.

A new poll by AP-NORC out Friday shows a majority of Americans disagree with Trump’s demands that higher-education institutions make curriculum and cultural changes or face the loss of federal funding for scientific and medical research or have their tax-exempt status threatened.

The poll found that 62% of Americans support maintaining federal research funding, 72% believe “liberals, students and professors can speak freely to at least some extent,” and 84% are concerned at some level about the cost of tuition, an issue Trump has not focused on.

Trump’s 2017 tax package, which Republicans are moving to renew, implemented an endowment levy of 1.4% on net investment income, similar to one that private foundations pay. That levy generated more than $380 million from 56 colleges or universities in 2023 — though it affected just a small fraction of the 1,700 private, nonprofit US schools. 

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington floated a long list of possible budget cuts in January that included raising $10 billion over 10 years by raising the endowment tax to 14%.

Discussions over the Republican tax package are reaching a critical stage. Trump is meeting Friday with the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee — the chamber’s tax-writing panel, according to people familiar. 

Trump and Representative Jason Smith will discuss the draft proposal. The committee is expected to release parts of the bill later this afternoon and the rest of the draft on Sunday night or Monday, the people said.

One of the people familiar cast the effort as a bid by Republicans to ensure that universities spend their endowments on their students and not on other initiatives disfavored by conservatives, such as diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or on challenging the Trump administration’s policies.

Continue Reading

Trending