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

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending