Connect with us

Accounting

New CPA Success Index is DOA: NASBA’s data behind the index no longer holds up

Published

on

Several years ago, colleagues and I developed the CPA Success Index. The Success Index offered a metric better than raw single-part CPA exam pass rates to be used for evaluating CPA candidate performance from colleges and universities around the country. It estimated how likely candidates from a given school are to complete all “four” sections of the CPA exam within the crucial 18-month window.

The Success Index was a four-part alternative to the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy’s single-part pass-rate rankings, which we quickly found posted on university websites all over the country, and provided data for prospective students looking for a clearer signal of program quality. 

Last year, we published the final index based on the pre-CPA Evolution examination model. I anxiously awaited NASBA’s 2024 Candidate Performance Book to determine whether a new CPA Success Index that fit the new CPA Evolution exam model could be calculated. I anticipated preparing an index for the three-part core and separate index scoring for each discipline specialty exam, and using a 30-month exam window. I also anticipated preparing an index that would show the probability of passing in the time window, and estimate the average time for candidates from respective universities. 

But unfortunately, this year, the CPA Success Index is effectively dead on arrival. The problem is not the calculations themselves; it’s the glaring inconsistencies I found in NASBA’s candidate performance data, the numbers the success index relies on.

NASBA’s numbers don’t add up

We historically used NASBA’s Candidate Performance Data to calculate our Success Index scoring and rankings. However, for the Success Index to be reliable, the CPA exam data must be accurate and consistent. Historically, NASBA’s Candidate Performance Book provided data that was consistent enough to make reliable estimates. Confidence in their data is now gone. While culling through the 2024 data, we found large numbers of candidate scores to be missing, and potentially classified to incorrect colleges or universities, or not reported at all.  

To explain, let me illustrate the inconsistencies in the data for my school, the University of Northern Iowa. However, it applies to many, if not most, schools’ data in the report. In 2024, our department started closely tracking every graduate sitting for the exam, including collecting copies of candidates’ official score reports. What we found is that we had official candidate reports from far more candidates than NASBA is reporting. The discrepancies are not trivial; they range from 25 to 40% of the scores, depending on the section. We also found that Iowa community colleges appear in NASBA’s reporting despite the fact that Iowa law requires a bachelor’s degree to sit for the CPA exam. It seems logical to ask where all those community college students actually got their degrees. (If a 2024 CPA Success Index were to be published, top performers nationally would include community colleges in states that require a BA.) 

Meanwhile, states with dozens of community colleges and far more students, such as Illinois, show none. And, NASBA has significant errors when reporting students from graduate programs. As a result, we didn’t report graduate school rankings in our original Success Index reports. Overall, the discrepancies in the 2024 Candidate Performance report are not minor, and they signal systemic data integrity problems with candidate reporting at NASBA.

The GIGO effect

The CPA Success Index was a refined and purposeful analytic aimed at providing useful, informative data for academic institutions looking to benchmark their programs and provide a KPI that learning goals can be measured against, to provide reliable data to prospective students who might desire enrolling at an academic institution where students are likely to pass the exam, and to firms, particularly public accounting firms, who need to maximize their recruiting budgets and hire graduates from schools in which they are confident students will pass the CPA exam. But no matter how sound the model, garbage in equals garbage out. If candidate counts and pass rates are misreported in NASBA’s Candidate Performance data, the resulting Success Index scores and rankings may be as misleading as NASBA’s. Programs that appear to be performing poorly may actually be terrific, and those that look stellar could in fact be struggling.

A reliable metric goes beyond university bragging rights, schools use data and rankings to recruit students, justify resources, and support accreditation reports. Prospective students and employers often use data and rankings to gauge program quality. If the scoreboard is broken, everyone, from future CPAs, faculty, firms, are flying blind.

The timing couldn’t be worse

Accounting education has been under intense scrutiny over the past decade as enrollments are down (although turning a corner), and the profession is searching for ways to attract and prepare new CPAs. At the same time, the CPA Evolution overhaul is reshaping exam content and candidate strategies. Reliable outcome metrics have never been more critical. Losing confidence in one of the few useful data points we had, just as the exam itself changed, sets accounting education back.

What must happen next

If the NASBA data, and any metrics that rely on NASBA data, are to regain credibility, four things must happen next. First, NASBA must supply full and transparent data that can be reconciled. In the past, NASBA offered custom reporting, albeit for a very high fee, for colleges and universities so they could get verifiable and accurate data. That would allow programs to do things like analyze data that differentiates the performance of undergraduate and graduate students. NASBA discontinued that practice a few years ago. 

Second, NASBA should improve its process and control over data reporting. That may mean adding more fields in CPA applications that would allow for better and more accurate differentiation in reporting, or adding processes that reconcile data and reports with students’ transcripts. NASBA can theoretically access all the data it needs to produce an accurate report since CPA candidates must submit the transcript from every institution they attended, even if it is just one dual credit high school class, when registering to take the CPA exam. 

Lastly, NASBA should refrain from ranking institutions. Forget about putting out faulty rankings with bad data; ranking institutions does not take into account the types of students who enroll at particular institutions, and reporting outcomes (even if they were correct) distorts the impact and quality of education a student receives without accounting for the inputs. The colleges and universities that appear to have the most distorted data in the 2024 NASBA Candidate Performance report are those that have a large number of transfer students, and very likely those that cater to low-income and minority students.  This hurts the profession’s efforts to diversify and provides poor information to students with the smallest margin for error in their life.  

Finally, NASBA may need to have its data audited and verified for accuracy by an independent firm.  That may be extreme, given this is the association for boards of accountancy, but the data appears to be so erroneous and misleading that any future reports are presumably questionable.

It is ironic that the National Association of State Boards of Accounting produces a report that people rely upon but can’t be trusted and verified.  For the profession, the academy and future CPAs, NASBA needs to get it right.

Editor’s note: The author developed the original CPA Success Index methodology for Accounting Today and published it for several years.

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