Connect with us

Accounting

Trump’s regulatory rollback: Is the PCAOB next?

Published

on

Complimentary Access Pill

Enjoy complimentary access to top ideas and insights — selected by our editors.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education have all been caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Now, accountants predict that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board could be next.

Trump’s nomination of Paul Atkins to replace former SEC Chair Gary Gensler has been seen by many to be a sign of deregulation on the horizon, with further estimates that Atkins will reshape the PCAOB’s leadership makeup if confirmed to the SEC. Other possible scenarios include the consolidation of the PCAOB into the SEC.

Lara Long, managing director at the New York-based business advisory firm Riveron, said players in the capital markets see Republican control of the White House and Congress as a strong sign that regulatory actions will “either be reversed or will significantly decline.”

“So far, no one is 100% sure of the PCAOB’s future, including whether the agency will be folded into the SEC,” Long said. “Many insiders feel that whatever happens with the PCAOB will not eliminate the need for the financial markets to have an audit regulator.”

Read more: The regulatory forecast: Less, and lighter

Data published by Cornerstone Research in February recapped the PCAOB’s enforcement action trends over the last 20 years. In the decade that followed the first finalized enforcement action from the board in 2004, activity was calm, with 72 auditing actions against a mix of 126 respondents that included 53 audit firms and 73 individuals. Monetary penalties were roughly $5 million.

That trend took a dramatic shift in 2015, when the PCAOB finalized 34 auditing actions and submitted close to $10 million in penalties — double the total for the prior 10 years.

Between 2015 and 2024, the board finalized a total 302 auditing actions against 466 respondents and issued monetary penalties in excess of $86 million. Last year accounted for roughly 40% of the penalties issued for the decade.

“The PCAOB continued aggressive enforcement in 2024, finalizing 30 auditing actions in the first half of 2024, more than triple the number of actions finalized in the first half of 2023,” Jean-Philippe Poissant, one of the report’s co-authors and co-head of Cornerstone Research’s accounting practice, said in a statement. “In one in five auditing actions, the PCAOB alleged violations of not only auditing standards, but quality control standards and ethics and independence, as well.”

Similar data released in a March report by the Brattle Group offered predictions into how this trend could change under the new Trump administration.

“We expect that the combination of Trump 2.0 and ongoing constitutional challenges [like] Jarkesy and Doe vs. PCAOB matters will bring a sea change in auditor enforcement activity,” the report said.

Read more: Expect a tempest in tax under Trump

Learn more about the recent activity from the PCAOB and what experts across the profession think the future will hold for the organization.

kpmg-sign.jpg

Sean Gallup/Getty Images Europe

PCAOB sanctions nine firms in KPMG’s network

Officials with the PCAOB censured and fined nine firms in KPMG’s global network of firms for both violating quality control standards and neglecting to shed light on who performed the audits.

Firms impacted by the sanctions and roughly $3.374 million in fines include KPMG Auditores Independentes Ltda. in Brazil, KPMG LLP in Canada, KPMG S.p.A. in Italy, Somekh Chaikin in Israel, KPMG LLP in the U.K., KPMG Cárdenas Dosal, S.C. in Mexico, KPMG Samjong Accounting Corp. in South Korea, KPMG AG in Switzerland and KPMG in Australia.

“It is essential that investors and audit committees know where issuers’ audits are being conducted and by whom so that they can make informed selection and ratification decisions,” Erica Williams, PCAOB chair, said in a statement this month. “These violations prevent investors and audit committees from obtaining important information.”

Read more: PCAOB sanctions KPMG network firms in 9 countries

PCAOB logo - office - NEW 2022

Is it the end of the PCAOB and SEC’s crackdown on auditors?

The first half of 2024 was rife with enforcement actions from the PCAOB and Securities and Exchange Commission, but that trend was quelled in the second half of the year due to a notable Supreme Court ruling and a rash of lawsuits against the PCAOB.

Data from the Brattle Group showed that both organizations brought 58 enforcement actions against auditors last year, keeping pace with the 60 actions the previous year and the 59 actions in 2022. But experts predict that leadership changes at the PCAOB and SEC, coupled with a second Trump administration, could drastically hamper this trend.

“Activity appears to have been substantially impacted by the Supreme Court’s SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling, which found that the regulator’s use of administrative proceedings to seek financial civil penalties for securities fraud was unconstitutional,” Alison Forman, co-leader of Brattle’s Accounting Practice, said in a statement. “We expect fallout from Jarkesy and similar constitutional challenges facing the PCAOB — as well as the new presidential administration — to dramatically shift the enforcement landscape moving forward.”

Read more: PCAOB and SEC crackdown on auditors appears to be ending

PCAOB logo

Auditor outcry sees rollback of PCOAB firm and engagement metrics

Following widespread outcry from auditing firms and companies, the PCAOB has walked back two proposed standards on firm reporting and firm and engagement metrics it approved last November.

Both standards failed to obtain the required additional approval from the SEC in order to take effect. Under the new guidance, firms would have been required to provide the PCAOB with details on their partner and manager involvement in audits, workload, training hours, experience of audit personnel, retention, allocation of audit hours, restatement history, fees, governance, network relationships, cybersecurity and more.

“Among our concerns was the potential unintended consequence of the rules prompting small and midsized audit firms to stop performing public company audits, impacting companies that depend on those audit firms as they seek access to U.S. capital markets,” Sue Coffey, the AICPA’s CEO of public accounting, said in a statement, according to the Journal of Accountancy.

Read more: PCAOB withdraws rules on firm and engagement metrics, firm reporting

President Donald Trump speaks during an executive order signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House.

Could the Trump administration dissolve the PCAOB?

Industry experts eyeing the governmental downsizing led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency are beginning to prepare for a similar scenario at the PCAOB.

In speaking at a February meeting of the Accountants Club of America in New York, AICPA and CIMA president and CEO Mark Koziel remarked that the lack of general public awareness of the PCAOB leaves the organization with a smaller pool of advocates working to keep it alive when compared to other organizations.

“When you think about the fact that the PCAOB, if they were to shut it down, and DOGE would be able to take credit for it, who would oppose it?” Koziel said. “It has a $400 million budget, none of which is paid for by taxpayers. … But it’s a $400 million win, if [Elon Musk’s DOGE] could say it publicly in some way, shape or form.”

Read more: AICPA prepares for the possible end of the PCAOB

Fines

BillionPhotos.com – stock.adobe.

Diving into the PCAOB’s record $35M in fines in 2024

Last year was an active enforcement year for the PCAOB, as officials levied more than $35 million in fines.

The largest of the bunch was a $25 million fine against KPMG Netherlands, after the PCAOB found via a 2022 whistleblower report that employees were cheating on the firm’s internal training program by sharing answers with one another over a five year period. This was the largest civil money penalty in the PCAOB’s history.

Further actions include the board’s decision to revoke a firm’s registration after repeated rule violations and failing to comply with the organization’s investigation, as well as a $150,000 fine for KPMG China partners for audit standard violations.

Read more: PCAOB imposed $35M in fines in 2024

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

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

Trending