Connect with us

Accounting

Who’s most likely to leave your accounting firm?

Published

on

The person who’s most likely to leave your firm is probably a generalist middle manager less than a decade into their career, who works in accounting or auditing, and who isn’t allowed to work from home.

That’s according to the preliminary results from the Second Annual Accountants Professional Satisfaction Survey, which were shared yesterday during the 2025 Bridging the Gap Conference, being held in Denver this week.

“A lot of the middle areas — seniors and managers — are where the problems are,” explained Dominic Piscopo, the founder of Big 4 Transparency.com and host of the Big 4 Transparency Podcast, who worked with the founders of the survey this year. “Based on our data, the satisfaction curve forms a smile — interns are so happy to be there, and partners are more satisfied, but it dips down for managers and senior. The average response across all levels is a seven out of 10, but it’s worst in the middle levels.”

2025 Bridging the Gap survey

Randy Crabtree, Dominic Piscopo, Hank Berkowitz and Seth Fineberg at Bridging the Gap 2025

While job dissatisfaction isn’t limited to any single group or types of accountants, the survey found that it was highest among respondents with these characteristics:

  • Middle manager (manager, senior manager director);
  • Mid-career (6-10 years);
  • Works at a firm with 10-20 employees;
  • No flexibility to work from home as needed;
  • Spends the bulk of their time in accounting and auditing;
  • Has no variety in their assignments or client mix;
  • Is a generalist, not serving a niche;
  • Their time boundaries are not respected by their clients and co-workers; and,
  • They get no firm support with difficult clients.

The types of firms where staff are most likely to leave the profession are:

  • Firms that bill by the hour;
  • Firms that require staff to track and report time;
  • Firms that are not collaborative or nurturing;
  • Firms where knowledge is siloed/closely guarded; and,
  • Firms that have minimal opportunities for those not on the partner track.

“These are all things that eat at your employees, day in and day out, week in and week out,” said Seth Fineberg, founder of consultancy Accountants Forward, and one of the co-founders of the survey.

Moving forward — but not enough

The other preliminary results suggest a generally positive direction for many of the factors of job satisfaction that it tracks.

“We have seen the needle move from 50% highly satisfied overall to 53%,” explained Hank Berkowitz of HB Publishing & Marketing, who co-founded the survey last year, “but there’s still room for improvement.”

“We’ve seen an unbelievable jump in asking for assistance with burnout issues, but it’s still nowhere near good enough,” said Randy Crabtree, the host of Bridging the Gap, cofounder of Tri-Merit Specialty Tax, and the originator of the satisfaction survey.

The percentages of those who felt comfortable asking for mental health resources at work, for instance, more than doubled, from 21% in the 2024 survey to 43% in 2025, while those who felt comfortable asking for help with stress management rose from 22% to 39%.

That’s still much less than half, however.

“There’s definitely lots of room for improvement,” agreed Fineberg. “When only two in five respondents say mental health resources are readily available, that’s a bit concerning.”

The preliminary survey results also suggested that the types of work accountants do correlate strongly to higher job satisfaction, with more high-value-added services like business advisory and consulting have the most highly satisfied respondents, and those in audit being least likely to report high levels of job satisfaction.

“In audit and tax, very specifically, job satisfaction has increased steadily since 2023,” said Piscopo. “Audit had the lowest starting point, but those two have shown the most steady improvement.”

The survey is still open; it is confidential and only takes about five minutes to complete. To participate, follow this link.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Embedded AI and Automated Anomaly Detection Reshape Modern Corporate Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

Embedded AI and Automated Anomaly Detection Reshape Modern Corporate Accounting Frameworks

The accounting and audit landscape in 2026

The accounting and audit landscape in 2026 is defined by the full integration of artificial intelligence directly into core enterprise software platforms. Rather than operating as standalone third-party tools, generative AI, automated reconciliation, and continuous anomaly detection are now natively embedded within major ERP engines including SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, QuickBooks, and Sage. This technology integration is transforming daily financial operations, internal reporting controls, and external audit workflows.

Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap

Recent industry benchmark surveys reveal a widening performance gap between finance teams utilizing integrated AI automation and those relying on legacy manual processes. Organizations actively leveraging embedded AI report up to 37% higher revenue per employee, driven by automated invoice matching, instant ledger entries, and predictive cash flow modeling. Routine, high-volume transactional tasks that once required manual intervention are now executed in real time with continuous digital audit trails.

AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities

However, the widespread deployment of embedded AI introduces new governance and control responsibilities for accounting professionals. Auditing standards now mandate strict verification protocols for algorithmically generated journal entries and financial commentary. External auditors are evaluating enterprise AI governance frameworks, reviewing automated rule sets, testing data ingestion pipelines, and ensuring that financial controllers maintain human-in-the-loop oversight over automated system outputs.

Furthermore, cloud governance and data security have become core operational skills for modern CPAs and controllers. As financial ledgers and client data stream through interconnected cloud ecosystem APIs, accounting teams must implement multi-factor access controls, continuous data encryption, and strict data privacy compliance to protect sensitive financial records from cyber vulnerabilities.

The embedding of AI into enterprise accounting software redefines internal financial controls and career requirements for accounting professionals. Business owners and finance leaders must update governance protocols, invest in staff digital literacy, and ensure accounting systems maintain rigorous audit compliance to capture productivity gains safely.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Trending