AICPA Conference Takeaways: The Only Constant is Change

I just spent three days in Washington, D.C. at the 2022 AICPA and CIMA Conference on SEC and PCAOB developments. Days were filled with presentations from various regulators such as the SEC, the PCAOB, the FASB, the IASB, and other stakeholders within the industry. Topics were varied but certainly there was a consistent theme: we are living in unprecedented times filled with an incredible amount of uncertainty and with ever-increasing rates of change; exponential evolution some might say. As the old adage goes: the only constant is change.

Tone at the Top

Having attended many of these AICPA conferences, what I thought was perhaps most notable this year was a significant shift in tone, and I saw this in two distinct manners. First, whether the SEC, the PCAOB, the FASB or any other industry group, presenters repeatedly emphasized the importance of acting on behalf of investors and stakeholders and the significance of seeking input from stakeholders. All regulators have processes designed to incorporate feedback on proposed standards and almost every group has various oversight and investor stakeholder committees to ensure the investor public is represented and heard. The other major shift in tone was the emphasis on quality: quality financial reporting, quality disclosures, and perhaps most notably, quality audits. Last year, the SEC enforcement division started that tone shift with a bold statement that auditors are the gatekeepers. This year, the PCAOB’s new board continued that messaging; the Chair of the PCAOB, Chair Williams, made it very clear that the PCAOB is holding auditors accountable and is pursuing strong enforcement actions, as evidenced by the significant increase in both the number of enforcement cases closed in 2022 and the dollar amount of monetary penalties imposed on individuals and registered firms through enforcement actions.

Key takeaway: Investors and stakeholders should get involved and be heard in the standard-setting process. Quality is paramount, and the regulators are holding all responsible parties accountable.

Economic Uncertainty

Though perhaps sensationalized in the media, the reality is that we are indeed living in unprecedented times. Inflation in the US (and most of the world) is the highest it has been in almost 40 years. To combat inflation, interest rates have also been rising to levels not seen in decades. Compounding these factors, there are continued supply chain disruptions partially resulting from effects of the global pandemic, there is Russia’s war in Ukraine, and amongst other variables, there is the unexpected labor shortage (from the Great Resignation). All these factors beg the question: are we in a recession? If not yet, when? How bad will it be? How long will it last?

While these developments make for “interesting” political rhetoric, they also pose real challenges to the accounting and audit professions. For example, rising interest rates (which means higher discount rates) and rising inflation, particularly on costs (which translates to challenging cash flow projections and potentially lower margins), likely implies lower fair values when performing asset valuations for potential impairment. Rising interest rates also indicates higher incremental borrowing rates which equates to lower values for leased assets (and to be fair, lower liabilities as well).

Key takeaway: the uncertainty in the economy is posing real challenges to accounting for and auditing of estimates that are an essential part of financial reporting. Perhaps most simply stated, it’s NOT the same as last year. Auditors need to keep professional skepticism in mind and thoroughly challenge estimates and assumptions, including considering management bias and potential contradictory evidence.

Disclosures and Disaggregation

While many in the audit and accounting profession focus on the numbers in the financial statements themselves, the resounding message from the SEC was simply this: disclosures matter, so get them right! The SEC (Corp Fin, Enforcement, and OCA) spent most of its sessions discussing the significance of disclosures in the financial statements, including disclosures outside the financial statements, but required in the filing such as MD&A. For instance, the SEC made clear that registrants need to revisit risk disclosures and ensure that they are accurate and up to date considering the evolving economic landscape. In fact, though risk disclosures often read as hypotheticals, currently, many of the risks are now actual realities. There is no risk of inflation; inflation is real and relevant. There is no risk of rising interest rates; interest rates have gone up significantly over the past year.

In addition, the SEC and FASB discussed the increasing demand for disaggregation of disclosures. The FASB is currently considering increased disaggregation and disclosure related to segment reporting and income statement line items (such as further disaggregation of expenses and income taxes) and further disclosure related to statements of cash flows. The SEC is similarly releasing additional guidance and interpretations around further disaggregation over disclosures, or perhaps stated differently, around further depth and clarity. Don’t just tell the users “what” but give them more color as to “why.”

Finally, the SEC continued their focus on non-GAAP disclosures and ensuring these are a) labeled appropriately (clearly identified as non-GAAP and not using titles or labels similar to those used in GAAP metrics), b) are NOT more prominent than GAAP disclosures and c) are NOT misleading. The SEC does thorough reviews of SEC filings, but it’s important to know that the SEC also reviews anything available in the public domain including all press releases, earnings reports and issuers’ and management’s social media activity.

Key takeaway: Diligently review disclosures and ensure they are accurate, sufficiently precise (consider further disaggregation) and not misleading or contradictory in any capacity.

Recurring Hot Topics

Just as revenue recognition, leases and credit losses were the subject of recurring discussions for an almost three- or four-year period, the new hot topics included ESG, crypto, and cybersecurity.

Environmental, Social and Governance (or ESG)

Unsurprisingly, ESG was front and center in almost every discussion during the conference. It would be an understatement to say that huge changes are coming. While the fate of the 550-page SEC proposal is undetermined, the future of the US ESG movement is still inextricably linked to the forward progress in Europe. Global multinational firms as well as companies that are in any way a part of the European supply chain will have to start some form of ESG reporting and compliance in the coming years. The discussions at the conference further delved into the potential changes and challenges facing ESG. It seems all major corporations are struggling to find where to house this emerging department, though many agree that financial reporting will house and/or have significant involvement in this area given the current processes and controls in place. Consensus indicates that the biggest struggle will be in two facets:

Divergence in standards and practice: Currently, there are various standards and metrics, and companies are struggling to synthesize the requirements from a global perspective. Much like accounting and financial markets, uniformity across regulators will be difficult to achieve. As well, each industry has different risks and contributions to the ESG space, so uniformity of disclosures and metrics across industries will be difficult. This divergence challenges the comparability of information presented.

Reliability of data: Despite uncertainty in exactly “what” will be required, companies are moving forward with ESG disclosures, thanks largely to investor demands. The other big challenge is figuring out where/how to obtain the data needed for disclosures and then how to ensure this data is reliable. Although data used in financial reporting is subject to rigorous controls over completeness and accuracy (“C&A”), much of the data used for ESG disclosures will come from either internal operations (which may not be subject to strong controls over C&A) or from third parties (which makes it difficult for companies to evaluate C&A). The requirement for some form of assurance (currently expected to be “limited assurance” as opposed to “reasonable assurance” which is the basis for auditing financial statements) will inherently require understanding sources of data and how that data was validated for C&A. This poses a huge challenge to audit firms. Many audit firms are starting “trial runs” with clients to help companies understand the potential level of detail needed to perform a quality audit (or whatever form of attestation the standards eventually require) over ESG reporting. Additionally, ESG will continue to evolve over time and the industry will need to learn to distinguish between errors in previous disclosures and data versus improvements in the quality and granularity of disclosures and data.

Key takeaway: it’s never too early to start preparing for this emerging reporting requirement and do NOT underestimate the amount of time and resources it will take to obtain the data from all potential parties involved, (such as small upstream suppliers), to prepare the disclosures, and to perform a quality assurance service over the ESG reporting.

Crypto

The recurring joke amongst presenters was that you couldn’t sit up on stage and not mention crypto…and sure enough, almost every presenter discussed crypto currency and digital assets. There appears to be a lot of demand for additional guidance (at least the questions submitted to the panels seemed to indicate that); I believe that stems from perhaps a lack of understanding of the emerging technology. Although the SEC and FASB have released interpretations and limited guidance on how to account and report digital assets, both entities seemed to indicate that the current accounting and financial reporting frameworks provide sufficient guidance. The PCAOB also includes crypto as a risk factor when selected risk-based audits for inspection; although there continue to be deficiencies in the audit space, the PCAOB also believes its standards are currently sufficient. So, while there was always mention of crypto, there was actually very little in-depth discussion of crypto.

Key takeaway: understand the technology/industry before engaging in an audit over crypto (meaning, this should be part of your client acceptance considerations, evaluating whether the firm has the right knowledge and competencies to perform a quality audit) and review the various SEC, FASB and PCAOB releases related to crypto and digital assets. I wouldn’t expect drastic changes and/or significant new standards specific to crypto.

Cybersecurity

Surprisingly (in this author’s humble opinion), there was far less discussion of cybersecurity than one might expect. That said, one of the panelists, Pete Cordero, former FBI and current cybersecurity advisor/consultant, also emphatically stated that cybersecurity is “THE risk of the decade.” And I don’t disagree. Specific to audit and accounting, cybersecurity poses a risk to the integrity of financial reporting systems which in turn poses a pervasive threat to the entire financial reporting process. Cybersecurity also poses a greater risk to society at large whether threatening utilities, financial institutions, or as many learned from Colonial Pipeline, general supply chains, including oil and gas.

Although there was only one hour devoted to cybersecurity, the discussion was robust and informative. The SEC requires disclosures around cybersecurity risks (if they are real and relevant, which given email, inherently applies to every company) and cybersecurity breaches. By its very nature, given the pervasiveness of technology, it’s difficult to determine “what constitutes a material breach?”

Perhaps most indicative of how future regulation may develop, Mr. Cordero discussed some of the proposed amendments to the New York Department of Financial Services’ DFS Part 500 Cybersecurity Rules including the requirement for certain companies with heightened risk to conduct an annual, independent audit of cybersecurity programs. Stop and digest that for a minute. In a realm of ever-changing and unlimited potential risk, what is the appropriate threshold to assert that controls are sufficiently designed, implemented and operating effectively to prevent and/or detect cybersecurity threats and breaches? There’s a lot to unpack here, but for another time.

Key Takeaway: Let’s not overlook cybersecurity just because other hot topics dominate the headlines. Cybersecurity is an ever-present danger that poses pervasive risks to companies and the financial markets and is an important consideration for accountants and auditors alike.

Resources Abound

There is a significant amount of change in the industry and we’re all feeling it. There is a sense of overwhelm at times and we didn’t even touch on the labor shortages and the new quality management standards impacting audit firms. We get it and we feel the pressure many of our clients are facing. Despite the number of changes and emerging topics, I took comfort in seeing just how much the regulators seem to understand the evolving landscape. While they are there to represent their stakeholders, they also want to support the accountants and auditors to empower quality financial reporting and auditing. There is an abundance of resources on almost every topic covered at the conference including publications from the FASB, SEC, PCAOB, AICPA, CAQ, IASB, ISSB, Big 4, industry groups, etc. In addition, as evidenced in the hallways and the underwriter booths, there are literally dozens of companies out there to support you whether in data analytics, scheduling and temporary staffing, knowledge experts and training, etc. And yes, we here at JGA have our fingers on the pulse of the audit industry and are ready to help however we can.

Key takeaway: Resources abound; you don’t have to go it alone!

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Jackson Johnson Appointed to AICPA & NASBA International Qualifications Appraisal Board (IQAB)

June 8, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory is pleased to announce that Jackson Johnson, CPA, President, has been appointed to serve on the AICPA & NASBA International Qualifications Appraisal Board (IQAB). The IQAB is responsible for evaluating international accounting qualifications and facilitating mutual recognition agreements between the United States and other countries, helping to support global mobility and consistency in professional standards. “It’s an honor to serve on the IQAB and contribute to efforts that strengthen the global accounting profession,” said Johnson. “As the profession continues to evolve, collaboration across jurisdictions is critical to maintaining high standards and enabling greater mobility for accounting professionals worldwide.”

AI Governance Belongs in the Boardroom, Not the Server Room

May 20, 2026

Few technologies have generated as much excitement—and as much promise—for accounting firms as artificial intelligence (“AI”). The potential to streamline audit execution, reduce hours, and enhance firm profitability is real and already being realized. However, AI does not simply change how audits are performed; it fundamentally alters how firms must think about oversight, responsibility, and quality management. As regulators sharpen their focus on AI‑enabled audits, firm leadership must move beyond adoption and address a more complex challenge: establishing clear and scalable AI governance. This article outlines why AI governance is now a strategic imperative for accounting firm leadership. As discussed in JGA’s article What Regulators Expect to See When AI is Used , inspectors do not evaluate AI tools in isolation. They evaluate whether the engagement team obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence, exercised professional skepticism, and applied appropriate supervision and review when AI was used. Those expectations are grounded in existing auditing standards and apply regardless of whether AI was used for risk assessment, testing, or documentation support. Against that backdrop, AI governance is not simply about approving tools or managing technology risk. It is about ensuring the firm’s system of quality management supports consistent, supervised, and well-documented use of AI that aligns with audit objectives and withstands inspection scrutiny. When firms treat AI as an IT matter, governance discussions tend to center on 1) Data security, 2) System access, 3) Vendor due diligence, and 4) Infrastructure controls. Those topics matter—but they are only the baseline. Inspectors do not evaluate whether AI systems are well engineered; they evaluate whether AI enabled audit work complies with standards, supports professional judgment, and is governed within the firm’s system of quality management. In short, AI governance is a firmwide audit quality issue, not a back office technology function. Using AI does not change the auditor’s responsibilities. Requirements still apply when AI is used for 1) Audit evidence, 2) Professional skepticism, 3) Supervision and review, 4) Engagement partner accountability and 5) Firm level quality controls. From an inspection standpoint, AI introduces new audit quality risks, including: Over reliance on automated outputs Reduced professional skepticism (automation bias) Inconsistent application across engagements Insufficient documentation of judgment Lack of transparency around how conclusions were reached These are not IT risks—they are audit quality risks. AI Touches Nearly Every Component of a QC System Under modern quality management frameworks (including PCAOB QC 1000 , AICPA SQMS No. 1, IAASB ISQM 1), AI affects nearly every component of a firm’s QC system, not just technology or data governance.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Present at 41st Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum in San Francisco

May 20, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory ("JGA") is proud to announce that Joe Lynch, Shareholder, will be speaking on a panel at the 41st Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum . Joe will deliver the PCAOB update on June 5, with attendance available both in person and virtually. This panel will summarize the activities of the PCAOB including: Recite new requirements for the lead auditor’s use of other auditors Anticipate the new standard, “The Auditor’s Use of Confirmation” Enumerate the new requirements of QC 1000, “A Firm’s System of Quality Control” Recall the guidance of the new auditing standard “General Responsibilities of the Auditor in Conducting an Audit” Understand the amendments addressing aspects of audit procedures that involve technology-assisted analysis of information in electronic form Learn about the proposal to replace existing auditing standards related to an auditor’s use of substantive analytical procedures Anticipate other Standard-Setting and Research Projects Summarize PCAOB inspection findings and enforcement activities Understand recent PCAOB publications, including: Spotlight Publications Audit Focus Publications Data Points Publications Click here to register and learn more. Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

JGA Response to PCAOB Request for Comment on Strategic Priorities

May 15, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) has submitted its response to the PCAOB’s request for input on its 2026–2030 strategic priorities. Drawing on extensive experience supporting firms subject to PCAOB oversight, JGA’s comments emphasize a more modern, risk-based approach to regulation focused on audit quality, scalability, and transparency. View JGA's comments here. Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

Monitoring and Remediation: Turning Engagement Deficiencies Into System Improvement

April 28, 2026

In our work with firms, we have seen a clear shift in how monitoring and remediation are viewed under modern quality management frameworks. They are no longer treated as retrospective compliance exercises. Instead, engagement deficiencies are increasingly used as meaningful inputs into an ongoing, risk-based system designed to identify issues early, address them thoughtfully, and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Regulatory messaging reinforces this evolution. Oversight bodies are signaling a shift in focus from isolated engagement outcomes and more on whether firms have a system of quality management that consistently detects quality risks, responds appropriately, and demonstrates that remediation is working in practice. Based on our experience, while individual engagement deficiencies remain important, the more critical question is becoming how firms analyze, respond to, and learn from those issues over time. Engagement Deficiencies Are Signals, Not Endpoints Engagement deficiencies can surface through many channels, including pre-issuance reviews, internal inspections, post-issuance reviews, peer reviews, and regulatory inspections. Regardless of source, firms benefit most when these findings are evaluated through a consistent quality management lens. In practice, we encourage firms to look beyond whether a single engagement fell short . The more meaningful consideration is whether the deficiency points to potential weaknesses in governance, methodology, training, supervision, resourcing, or monitoring activities. We often observe that when issues are quickly labeled as engagement-specific, without assessing whether they reflect broader quality risks, valuable insight is lost. Modern quality management frameworks are designed to use these signals to strengthen the system, not simply close individual findings. What Effective Monitoring and Remediation Looks Like in Practice Firms that navigate this environment effectively tend to apply a disciplined and repeatable approach when deficiencies are identified. Based on our experience supporting firms across a range of practice areas, several elements consistently make a difference: Assess whether the issue may be systemic Recurring observations across engagements, service lines, or time periods often indicate system-level risk. Similar documentation gaps, inconsistent application of methodology, or supervision challenges rarely arise in isolation. Perform meaningful root cause analysis Effective root cause analysis typically moves beyond surface explanations. Firms benefit from evaluating whether policies and procedures were designed appropriately, implemented as intended, and supported by sufficient training, time, and resources. Design remediation that directly responds to the quality risk Remediation is most effective when it is clearly linked to the underlying risk. Depending on the circumstances, this may include enhancements to methodology, targeted training, revised review requirements, or changes to engagement acceptance, staffing, or oversight processes. Validate remediation through timely monitoring Implementing corrective actions is only part of the process. In our experience, firms are most successful when they also confirm that remediation operates as intended. Follow-up monitoring performed early enough to prevent recurrence is a critical component of this step. Failure to validate remediation remains one of the most common and consequential weaknesses we observe across firms. Case Study: When Remediation Is Not Validated In one situation we encountered, a firm identified engagement deficiencies through post-issuance reviews. The issues mirrored observations that had previously been noted during peer review and were communicated as having been addressed by the group responsible for report issuance. However, responsibility for validation was not clearly assigned, and no follow-up procedures were performed to evaluate whether the revised processes were effective. Subsequent post-issuance reviews, triggered by an organizational change, revealed that similar and additional deficiencies had re-emerged. From a quality management perspective, this was not an engagement execution failure. It reflected a breakdown in monitoring and remediation. The firm had information indicating quality risk but did not adjust its monitoring activities to confirm that remediation was working. Viewed through a system lens, this represents a system-level deficiency rather than an isolated engagement issue. Quality Management Applies Across All Engagement Types Modern quality management frameworks apply across a firm’s assurance and attestation practice, including private company audits, public company audits, SOC engagements, nonprofit audits, and other services. Deficiencies identified in any practice area may signal broader weaknesses in: Governance and leadership Methodology and training Monitoring activities Remediation processes In our experience, firms struggle to maintain an effective system of quality management when certain practices are treated as exempt from system-level evaluation. Key Takeaways Engagement deficiencies are inputs into the system, not endpoints. Recurring issues often indicate systemic quality risk. Remediation should be validated, not assumed. Monitoring activities should evolve as risks emerge. Quality management applies across all engagement types. Firms that treat monitoring and remediation as a continuous feedback loop, rather than a periodic exercise, are typically better positioned to improve engagement quality and respond to evolving regulatory expectations. Looking for an independent perspective on whether engagement deficiencies have been fully addressed? Based on our experience working with firms across assurance and attestation practices, Johnson Global Advisory supports clients by performing independent reviews, validating remediation efforts, and strengthening monitoring processes. If you would like support refining policies, training, workflows, or documentation standards, or would benefit from an objective assessment ahead of regulatory, peer, or internal inspections, contact your JGA audit quality advisor to discuss your needs.

What Regulators Expect to See When AI Is Used

April 28, 2026

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is no longer experimental in public company audits. From risk assessment and scoping decisions to population testing, anomaly detection, and documentation support, AI enabled tools are increasingly embedded in audit execution and workflow. As use expands, the auditor’s core obligations do not shift to the technology, they remain with the engagement team. If AI is used to inform judgments, influence the nature, timing, or extent of procedures, or summarize and interpret information, auditors must still demonstrate that they obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence and applied professional skepticism throughout. In practice, auditors must understand what the tool is doing, confirm that inputs are complete and accurate, and evaluate whether the outputs are reliable and fit for purpose in the specific audit context. While the auditing standard devoted solely to AI have not been issued, our experience is that inspectors have been increasingly direct—through staff publications, questions from inspectors in the field, and public remarks—about what they expect to see when AI is used. The expectations are grounded in existing standards and longstanding inspection focus areas: audit evidence, supervision and review, professional skepticism, and firm quality control (now quality management). In other words, AI does not create a “new” audit; it amplifies the need to show your work. Firms that treat AI as a “shortcut”, rely on outputs that cannot be explained or reproduced, or fail to govern and document how tools were selected, configured, and monitored are inviting new risks to support their audit conclusions. Conversely, firms that can clearly articulate the purpose of the tool, how it aligns to audit objectives, how inputs and outputs were validated, and how experienced personnel supervised and challenged the results will be far better positioned during inspection. The table below summarizes what inspectors typically expect to see documented when AI is used in a public company audit. Firms can use these themes to evaluate whether their engagement documentation tells a complete story that an experienced auditor (and an inspector) can follow from objective, to procedure, to results, to conclusion.

Audit Documentation: From Low-Hanging Fruit to Load-Bearing Standard

March 30, 2026

In a previous article, Back to Basics: Audit Documentation Failures Have Become Dangerous Low Hanging Fruit , we highlighted how audit documentation had quietly re-emerged as a source of regulatory risk after years of relative deprioritization. While PCAOB Auditing Standard 1215, Audit Documentation (AS 1215), has historically been cited less frequently than other standards, our direct experience from recent inspection activity, enforcement actions, and internal inspection results, demonstrate that documentation failures are increasingly treated as indicators of deeper execution, supervision, and quality management breakdowns. In today’s environment, audit documentation is no longer merely a record of work performed. It is the primary evidence inspectors rely on to evaluate whether an engagement was properly planned, executed, and supported at the time the auditor’s report was issued. What has been low-hanging fruit now requires firms to close these gaps and transform them into a load-bearing foundation for audit quality. From Rare Enforcement to Systemic Inspection Risk AS 1215 establishes clear requirements regarding what must be documented, when documentation must be completed, and how engagement files must be assembled and retained. As discussed in our prior article, failures to comply with these requirements were historically viewed as technical or secondary issues, often resulting in inspection comments rather than enforcement action. That distinction is no longer meaningful. Recent enforcement actions involving backdating, improper (both intentionally, and inadvertent) modification of workpapers, and failure to timely assemble a complete audit file reflect an evolving regulatory view. Documentation failures do not simply violate procedural requirements; they call into question the credibility of the audit opinion itself. More importantly, beyond enforcement, documentation deficiencies are increasingly cited as core inspection findings. Inspectors are challenging situations where engagement teams assert that work was performed but cannot demonstrate that work within the archived file. In these cases, the absence of timely, complete, and clear documentation is no longer treated as a formality. It is treated as evidence that the engagement may not have been properly executed, supervised, or supported in accordance with PCAOB standards. This represents a fundamental shift. Documentation is no longer “low-hanging fruit.” It is a systemic inspection risk that cuts across execution, supervision, and firm-level quality management. From Misconduct to Execution Failures Pervasive documentation failures that do not involve intentional misconduct but still result in non-compliance are increasingly observed. For example, reviewer signoffs occurring near the documentation completion date, rather than contemporaneously with the performance of audit procedures, raise questions about whether effective supervision occurred during the audit or was deferred to meeting archiving deadlines. Similarly, engagement teams may assert that key judgments can be explained verbally, even when those judgments are not clearly documented in the audit file. In today’s environment, the distinction between “we can explain it” and “it is clearly documented” is critical. If procedures, judgments, and conclusions are not evident in the documentation itself, inspectors increasingly conclude that the work was not performed in accordance with PCAOB standards. The issue is not whether the engagement team can explain what they did after the fact. The issue is whether the archived documentation allows an experienced auditor, with no prior connection to the engagement, to understand the procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached at the time of the auditor’s report. When documentation fails to reach that standard, inspectors are increasingly concluding that the audit itself was not properly executed, regardless of intent. This reflects an important shift. Documentation failures are no longer viewed primarily as misconduct. They are viewed as symptoms of execution breakdowns, including delayed supervision, compressed review cycles, and audit workflows that defer documentation until the end of the engagement. As a result, AS 1215 has become a direct proxy for how audits are actually performed in practice. How the 14-Day Documentation Completion Requirement Changes the Risk Profile The execution risks are further amplified by the PCAOB’s shortened documentation completion timeline. Recent amendments to AS 1215 reduce the timeframe to assemble a complete and final audit file from 45 days to 14 days after the report release date. While this change may appear procedural, its implications are operational. Under this accelerated timeline, engagement teams no longer have a meaningful post-issuance window to resolve review notes, complete documentation, or finalize supervisory evidence. What were once viewed as “clean-up” activities are now more likely to result in timing violations and non-compliance. This shift places increased emphasis on: Contemporaneous documentation Real-time supervision Realistic workload and staffing models Audit Documentation as a Cornerstone of Audit Quality Audit documentation has long been described as low-hanging fruit in the inspection process. That characterization no longer reflects its role in today’s regulatory environment. Documentation now serves as the primary lens through which regulators assess whether an engagement was properly executed, supervised, and supported. With shortened timelines, expanded quality management expectations, and increased regulatory scrutiny, firms can no longer treat documentation as a downstream activity. It must be embedded into how engagements are planned, staffed, reviewed, and completed. In an environment where inspection conclusions are driven by what is, and what is not, in the audit file, strong documentation is not merely defensive. It is foundational to audit quality. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. For more information, please contact your JGA audit quality expert .

Accounting Firm Acquisitions: Why Due Diligence and Integration Determine Long-Term Success

March 30, 2026

Mergers and acquisitions within the accounting firm industry continue to accelerate, driven by succession planning needs, technology investment, talent constraints, geographic expansion, and the pursuit of new service lines. The pace and volume of transactions is being fueled, in large part, by private equity investment in the accounting firm space. Yet as deal activity accelerates, so does a critical reality: the long term success of an acquisition is determined well before the transaction closes—and long after the announcement is made. Experience across the profession shows that insufficient due diligence and poorly executed post acquisition integration are the most common sources of value erosion in accounting firm transactions. What the Regulator is saying and How JGA sees it At the AICPA December 2025 conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, common topics were the presence of private equity in the accounting firm space and the opportunities and challenges that come with this investment. As it relates to private equity, then-acting PCAOB Chair George Botic noted that while these investments have the potential to enhance audit quality by increasing firm capacity and modernizing audit tools with advanced technologies, the presence of private equity presents a risk that firms shift incentives to prioritize profitability over audit quality. Mr. Botic stated, “Both AI and private equity investments in accounting firms carry the potential to truly reshape the profession. Yet these opportunities come with clear challenges to ensure that overreliance on AI and the pressures of private equity do not jeopardize audit quality.” At JGA, we expect the PCAOB to increase its inspection focus on a firm’s system of quality management. To the extent that acquisitions present quality risks to a firm, we expect increased attention from the PCAOB in terms of how firms are managing these risks. Due Diligence: Looking Beyond the Numbers Financial performance, partner buy ins, and deal structure naturally receive significant attention during an acquisition. However, professional services firms—particularly those providing audit and assurance services—certain of the greatest risks often reside outside the financial statements. Effective accounting firm due diligence must assess not only what the target firm has earned, but how it has earned it—and whether that performance is sustainable. This includes gaining a deep understanding of: Audit quality history, including inspection and peer review results, Independence, ethics, and regulatory compliance practices, Industries served, industry concentration and related expertise, Client concentration, retention trends, and engagement risk profiles, Partner governance, compensation alignment, and succession readiness, Technology platforms, data security, and scalability, and Firm culture, leadership dynamics, and decision making processes. When these areas are not rigorously evaluated, issues frequently surface after the transaction closing—when remediation is more disruptive, more expensive, and far more visible to regulators, clients, and staff. The Risks of Inadequate Due Diligence Inadequate diligence often leads to unanticipated post transaction challenges, including: Regulatory findings related to legacy engagements, Independence violations requiring retroactive remediation, Client attrition driven by service disruption or cultural misalignment, Talent loss stemming from unclear expectations or compensation inequities, and Technology incompatibilities that impair efficiency and data integrity. Deficiencies inherited through acquisition can affect inspection outcomes, firm reputation, and overall audit quality long after the transaction closes. Integration: Where Value Is Created—or Lost Even when due diligence is performed thoughtfully, post acquisition integration remains the most common point of failure. Integration is often underestimated, treated as an operational exercise rather than a strategic initiative requiring sustained leadership attention. Successful integration goes far beyond combining systems or standardizing branding. It requires deliberate alignment across how the firm operates, governs itself, and delivers quality—particularly in areas such as: Audit methodology and documentation standards Quality management systems and monitoring processes Partner roles, authority, and accountability Talent development, evaluation, and retention Communication with clients, regulators, and staff Absent a structured integration plan, firms risk operating as a collection of semi independent practices rather than a cohesive organization. This fragmentation can undermine consistency, weaken accountability, and complicate regulatory compliance. A Strategic Imperative in a Changing Profession As consolidation continues and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, rigorous due diligence and disciplined integration are no longer optional. They are essential to managing risk, sustaining quality, and realizing the full value of a transaction. For accounting firm leaders, the message is clear: growth through acquisition can be a powerful strategy—but only when supported by a comprehensive understanding of what is being acquired and a deliberate plan for how the combined firm will operate as one. Firms that treat diligence and integration as leadership imperatives—rather than transactional steps—are better positioned to protect audit quality, retain talent, and preserve client trust while achieving growth objectives. JGA’s Role Guiding Firms through these Opportunities For firms seeking to grow through acquisition without sacrificing quality, control, or visibility, JGA is a solution. JGA is uniquely qualified with deep experience working with accounting firms on quality management, governance, and operational transformation. We have proven due-diligence tools built that are designed to be practical, adaptable, and immediately usable—while also supporting long term consistency as firms pursue multiple acquisitions over time. Ready to get started or need help refining your acquisition activities? Contact your JGA audit quality expert today to schedule a consultation and ensure acquisition activities are tailored to your firm’s needs.

JGA to Sponsor ALI's Accountants' Liability 2026 Conference

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C.: — Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is proud to sponsor the ALI’s Accountants’ Liability 2026 conference hosted by the American Law Institute (ALI). The two‑day program will take place May 14–15, 2026, in Washington, D.C., with a live webcast option available for remote attendees. This annual conference is a premier forum for accounting firm leaders, in‑house counsel, litigators, and regulators to examine the evolving landscape of accountants’ liability, enforcement priorities, and risk management. The 2026 program will explore how recent regulatory, litigation, and technological developments are reshaping the profession and what firms can do to proactively respond. “We are pleased to once again sponsor the ALI Accountants’ Liability Conference,” said Jackson Johnson, President of Johnson Global Advisory. “This event consistently brings together leading regulators, practitioners, and risk professionals to discuss the most pressing liability and oversight issues facing accounting firms today. We value the opportunity to engage with participants and contribute to these important conversations.” The program will feature nationally recognized panels of practitioners, general counsel, industry professionals, and government officials. Planned discussions will address current and emerging challenges facing accounting firms, including: Regulatory and enforcement priorities impacting the accounting profession Recent trends in accounting‑related litigation PCAOB and SEC perspectives on audits, inspections, and gatekeeper liability The impact of AI, cryptocurrency, and emerging technologies on audit quality and firm risk Best practices for navigating an evolving and uncertain regulatory environment Register by April 13, 2026, to attend in-person and use the code “ JGA2026 ” to save $250 off . OR, for webcast attendance, use the code " JOHNSON " to save $125 off the tuition. Click here to register. To learn more about how Johnson Global partners with in-house and outside counsel to support public accounting firms, we invite you to explore our latest brochure. This resource outlines our approach to independent monitoring and consulting, including how we assist firms in navigating PCAOB and SEC investigations, implementing quality control improvements, and responding to regulatory findings. Download the brochure below to see how our experienced team can help your firm meet today’s compliance challenges and build a stronger foundation for the future. Get a copy of our brochure here . About Johnson Global Advisory Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB and SEC staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Present in AICPA & CIMA Quality Management Webcast Series

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

We’re pleased to share that Joe Lynch , JGA Shareholder, will be presenting in a series of AICPA & CIMA webcasts focused on practical considerations for Quality Management. These sessions are designed to provide guidance in your QM journey. They support key elements such as engagement quality reviews, root cause analysis, and ongoing monitoring and remediation. Register for Upcoming Sessions Session 1 — Quality Management: Engagement Quality Reviews What you’ll learn: Practical considerations for your firm's responsibilities for engagement quality reviews and the reviewers requirements when executing engagement quality reviews under the updated quality management standards, including how to make EQRs scalable and effective. Register for this session here . Session 2 — Quality Management: Performing a Root Cause Analysis What you’ll learn: How root cause analysis supports remediation by identifying underlying drivers of the findings and deficiencies; supporting the design of corrective actions that prevent recurrence. Register for this session here . Session 3 — Quality Management: My System is Set Up — Now What? What you’ll learn: Post-implementation requirements of SQMS No. 1, which include monitoring activities, evaluating findings and deficiencies, remediation, and the annual evaluation process—so your system stays responsive and effective. Register for this session here . These sessions are included with a current Webcast Pass. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®.