Auditing Estimates: An Update for Unprecedented Times
For anyone reading the headlines, it sometimes feels as if we are living in unprecedented times, but the reality is, Shakespeare was right: “the past is prologue.” We’ve been through wars before. We’ve experienced inflation. We’ve survived recessions. What’s perhaps unique however, is the confluence of so many uncertainties which feels like uncharted territory for many of the younger generations.
For instance, in March 2020, while typically a lagging indicator of economic health, we saw unemployment uncharacteristically lead the way for economic deterioration with the onset of the pandemic. While the markets tanked in the short term, by Q3 2020, the stock market had fully recovered and then went on to rally through Q4 2021. Though market performance does not equate to economic strength, certainly the pandemic seemed to de-correlate the two metrics. Fast forward to Q3 2022 and headlines are struggling to know what to call the current economic situation. Is it a recession or just a correction? Despite two quarters of negative economic growth, companies across many industries are still posting profits (albeit perhaps less than anticipated) and almost every company is struggling to hire sufficient resources. Supply chains are still disrupted, given the war in Ukraine and the reverse impact of sanctions, as well as the ongoing nature of the pandemic. And finally, we’re all aware of the red-hot inflation trend, leading the Fed to post several interest rate hikes in a very short time.
While we can all acknowledge the economic uncertainties, how do we incorporate these new realities into our audits? Specifically, how does management compensate for these uncertainties in its estimates and how do auditors test these assumptions given how new or different they are from the past economic cycles?
In our first article on Auditing Estimates, we provided various audit considerations for teams when evaluating subjective management assumptions. We stated (and many of our readers echoed their frustrations) that “auditing a management estimate can feel like trying to make concrete out of Jell-O.” Several years later, in its most recent inspection observations, the PCAOB still finds issues with estimates, stating:
“While we have observed improvements in auditing accounting estimates, deficiencies continue to occur, particularly in auditing the allowance for loan losses (ALL), estimates related to accounting for business combinations, investment securities, and long-lived assets.”
The most common deficiencies stemmed from audits where engagement teams:
- Did not sufficiently evaluate the appropriateness of models used in valuations;
- Did not sufficiently obtain audit evidence for assumptions used in valuations;
- Did not sufficiently evaluate changes, or lack of changes, in recurring assumptions used in valuations (specifically for ALL); and
- Did not sufficiently evaluate contradictory evidence when concluding on the reasonableness of assumptions.
Building on our previous article, below we expand on the common deficiencies and additional considerations to incorporate into audits of estimates, especially given current economic conditions.
Auditing Estimates Considerations
Valuation Models
While I have rarely seen inappropriate models used in valuations, I have often seen teams fail to sufficiently document its evaluation of the valuation models used in estimates. AS 2501.10 and 11 explicitly require the auditor to evaluate whether the method used by management is in accordance with the financial reporting framework and is appropriate for the specific account. In addition, all changes to models need to be considered. Regardless of the type of model used/applied, it must be evaluated. The more complex the model, the more there is a need for a qualified valuation specialist that can specifically evaluate the appropriateness of the model itself, whether at the macro level (i.e. use of an income approach) or at the micro level (i.e. the appropriate factors to incorporate in building a discount rate).
Support for Assumptions
This finding is arguably the most difficult for auditors to fulfil given the judgment involved in what defines “sufficiency” or “reasonableness.” While we can debate the definitions, the reality is that many teams are still failing to obtain solid evidence and support for assumptions embedded into valuations. I often see teams inquire with management to understand how management derived its assumptions while failing to perform further procedures to obtain actual support for the inputs. Below are some considerations for teams to incorporate into their evaluation of assumptions:
- Availability of data / information: In the current economic environment, is there relevant historical or industry data that can support specific assumptions?
- For instance, given supply chain disruptions, do the past two or three years of historical internal data support future projections? How long will supply chain disruptions last? What will be the impact on production and sales? What will be the impact on costs and margins?
- For start-ups with less operating history or smaller companies with less internal information tracking/monitoring, or less controls around internally derived information, management and auditors may be forced to look to external sources of information to support specific assumptions.
- Accuracy and completeness as well as relevance and reliability of information: Engagement teams need to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of any data used by management that is internally derived (i.e. company specific data). In addition, for all externally derived information, auditors need to evaluate the relevance and reliability of that information. Regardless the source of the data, AS 2501.14 specifically requires auditors to evaluate whether “the data is relevant to the measurement objective for the accounting estimate.” The current economic uncertainties will challenge the relevance of information given some of the current conditions have not been seen in 30 or 40 years (i.e. inflation).
- Qualitative inputs: Management often discusses qualitative factors that impact the valuations. Somehow, these qualitative inputs need to translate into quantitative figures used in the valuation model. Management is responsible for creating and supporting the quantitative assumptions, so auditors should not hesitate to challenge management on how it derived a specific assumption. I encourage teams to keep asking: “How? Why? Tell me more.” Be curious.
Changes in Recurring Assumptions
Given the changes in economic conditions, management and auditors need to consider changes (or the lack thereof) in recurring assumptions. Part of this evaluation should be built into retrospective reviews over management estimates (as required under AS 2401.63-65). Retrospective reviews will help audit teams evaluate how accurate previous management estimates were. To the extent management missed the mark in prior years, I would expect that current year assumptions would change to more accurately reflect the most recent information. In addition, to the extent economic conditions change, again, assumptions should also adjust year over year. For instance, although historical inflation assumptions typically ranged from 2-3%, I would expect current year inflation assumptions to reflect the higher trends being reported in the news.
Too often, auditors simply apply a “status quo” blanket expectation for all assumptions, but the challenge will always be:
- If assumptions changed year over year, what supports the change in assumptions?
- If assumptions remained static, should they have remained constant? Or should they have changed to reflect evolving macro-economic or company-specific factors?
These same concepts apply for analytics and fluctuation analyses where teams often just use a blanket “status-quo” expectation and investigate any changes greater than $X and/or X%. Well, why is the status quo the appropriate expectation to start? These are the auditor judgments that need to be documented to evidence the team’s considerations.
Contradictory Evidence
Auditors often review large sums of information. Invariably, there will be data that appears contradictory to management’s assumptions/assertions. It is critical for auditors to challenge this information and resolve any discrepancies that arise from contradictory evidence. Auditors should consider the following:
- Obtain support from management to validate its assumption and ask management to speak to why the contradictory evidence is irrelevant or unreliable and should not be factored or weighted in the valuation.
- Perform a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the contradictory evidence does not materially impact the valuation.
- If contradictory evidence could materially impact the valuation, consider different scenarios and obtain additional support that further validates management’s assumption and/or invalidates the contradictory evidence. For instance, look at historical performance with the presence of the same contradictory evidence but that would still support management’s assumption.
The extent of additional procedures needed to resolve the contradictory evidence will depend on various factors, such as the risk assessment linked to the estimate, including the fraud risk assessment, the overall evaluation of management bias, the materiality of the valuation and the correlated contradictory evidence, etc. The key here is that auditors cannot simply ignore contradictory evidence. Teams need to document the evaluation.
Bank-Specific Considerations
While estimates for all companies are difficult to audit, it is perhaps even more complex for banks given the allowance for loan losses (or now the allowance for credit losses) has so much tied to economic conditions. How are banks incorporating new realities such as the interest rate volatility? Or supply chain disruptions that may impact borrowers’ abilities to service loans? What about conflicting economic conditions such as declining unemployment figures coupled with two quarters of negative economic growth? Do banks have sufficient historical data from previous time periods that mimicked the current economic conditions? Depending on the source of that information, is that information accurate and complete or relevant and reliable?
For banks, engagement teams should specifically consider the following:
- Since the allowance is often predicated on historic loss data, how has the engagement team evaluated the accuracy and completeness of that information? Recurring audits will often use recent historical loss data pulling from systems and reports that have been tested in previous audits. However, what if the engagement team decides to look at information from the 2008 recession or from the inflationary decades such as the 1970s and 1980s? What procedures has management and/or the engagement team performed to validate the accuracy and completeness of that information?
- How has the engagement team evaluated the relevance of information? For instance, a two or three-year historical loss lookback would not necessarily reflect the current economic conditions such as inflation, interest rates, unemployment rates, etc. Engagement teams should consider the relevant economic factors that are built into the allowance and evaluate how closely (or not) the historical loss data reflects the current economic conditions. To the extent the data is dissimilar, then management should be adjusting assumptions, such as qualitative factors (Q-factors), to incorporate these differences.
- For banks that may not have relevant historical loss data sets, management may be forced to look for external sources to support their assumptions (i.e. look for other banks and their loss ratios). Engagement teams need to consider the relevance and reliability of this information when evaluating the assumptions. For instance, where were the loss ratios obtained? Which industries/segments were included? How similar are the loan portfolios?
- Are inputs to qualitative factors auditable? What support is there for changes in qualitative factors? Do changes (or lack of changes) in qualitative factors correlate with macro-economic trends (i.e. did the bank adjust for unemployment and did that adjustment mirror current unemployment trends)? How did the bank determine the percentage change given the qualitative consideration? Often teams will need to look in aggregate at the impact of all changes to qualitative factors on the overall reserve.
- In testing controls, are engagement teams considering all relevant controls that might provide comfort over accuracy and completeness of information used to derive assumptions or data used in the valuation? How precise are management review controls around the valuation and how much comfort can engagement teams leverage from the testing of these management review controls? For example, would an entity level credit committee review be sufficiently precise to detect material misstatements in estimation and calculation of allowance, or should the auditors identify and test more precise process level controls?
One tool we often recommend to our clients who perform bank audits is to perform an anchoring exercise, or a look-back analysis performed to locate historical periods with similar economic conditions/outlooks. This requires historical information about losses reported in a time period with similar risk characteristics (e.g. Y1 of recession). Then compare the loss reserves to actual charge-offs (of the loans existed at Y1 YE) that occurred in the periods subsequent to Y1. The difference would be a good indicator of how accurate the historical loss model was and what assumptions / inputs might need to be adjusted in estimation of relevant Q-factors to fully reserve for anticipated losses in the current year.
Key Takeaways
Auditing estimates is never easy. As with all things audit, the nature, timing, and extent of procedures are driven by the risk assessment. Given the confluence of numerous economic uncertainties, many of which are “new” compared to the last couple of decades, the risks surrounding subjective management judgments and assumptions used in valuations will increase the overall risk linked to an estimate, including the potential for fraud risk through management bias. As auditors plan and prepare for audits, consider the following:
- Engagement teams must always evaluate the appropriateness of valuation models used in estimates. Some models may require a qualified valuation specialist to conclude.
- Auditors need to continue to expand on testing the reasonableness of assumptions by obtaining support from management that is complete and accurate and relevant, or from other external sources (such as industry data) that is relevant and reliable. Given so many changes to economic conditions, relevance will be an important consideration for teams to document.
- When the status quo is disrupted and the economy is in a period of significant uncertainty, auditors should consider all changes, or lack of changes, in assumptions and inputs. This is an important part of reviewing estimates for management bias from previous periods and for truly concluding on the reasonableness of current year estimates.
- Contradictory evidence must always be considered and sufficiently documented and resolved to conclude on the overall reasonableness of accounting estimates.
- Q-factors should be supported by reasonable estimates which are based on accurate, and relevant and reliable information, especially in times of significant uncertainties.
While we’ll never make concrete out of Jell-O, no matter the economy, we must continue to perform robust audit procedures and build in additional considerations to account for the economic changes and uncertainty we’re experiencing today. The hope is not to make concrete, but merely a Jell-O that holds it shape (and jiggles) despite a dynamic, changing environment.
Farkhod Ikramov, JGA Director, has over 25 years of public accounting and audit regulation experience. Most recently, Farkhod held a ten-year tenure as a PCAOB inspector. Throughout his experience there, he inspected a variety of industries, focusing the last four years on financial services, insurance and mining. His experience positions him as a passionate and practical advisor to public accounting firms, assisting leadership in the implementation of the right controls, policies and practices throughout the organization.
Introduction In today’s regulatory climate, audit firms must take a fresh look at how they evaluate engagement acceptance and client continuance. The stakes have never been higher. With the PCAOB’s newly adopted QC 1000 standard and the AICPA’s SQMS 1 framework now in effect , firms are expected to demonstrate a more rigorous, risk-based approach to quality control—starting with the very first decision: "Should we take this engagement?" The PCAOB recently released a new Audit Focus: Engagement Acceptance on this topic (Audit Focus). At the same time, we’ve been speaking, writing, and helping firms improve their process in this area. On the steps of PCAOB’s recent and timely guidance, this article explores the evolving risk landscape and offers practical guidance for firms to strengthen their engagement acceptance protocols in line with new regulatory expectations and JGA’s quality management insights. The New Risk Landscape: What QC 1000 and SQMS 1 Require The PCAOB’s QC 1000 standard introduces a scalable, risk-based framework that applies to all firms performing PCAOB engagements. It emphasizes that engagement acceptance is not just a procedural checkpoint, it’s a critical quality control decision that must reflect the firm’s risk profile, independence safeguards, and capacity to deliver a high-quality audit. Key risks highlighted in QC 1000 include: Independence and ethics violations: Firms must have systems to identify and escalate potential conflicts, including automated tracking of financial interests. Monitoring of in-process engagements: Firms are expected to assess quality risks before and during engagements, not just after the fact. Scalability and oversight: Larger firms face enhanced requirements, including external oversight and formal complaint tracking mechanisms. Similarly, SQMS 1 requires firms to design and implement a system of quality management that includes robust procedures for engagement acceptance and continuance. These procedures must consider: integrity and reputation of the client firm competence and resources ethical and legal requirements, and risks to audit quality and compliance. Issues arising from poor or inconsistent client or engagement acceptance policies and procedures isn’t new, but is being looked at in new ways by firms and their regulators with the: decrease in public company auditors qualified or going to market on conducting public company audits increasing number of firms that have been stripped of their privilege to conduct public company audits, and movement of companies to different auditors (think BF Borgers as the most egregious example, but your typical attrition in the most common case). The PCAOB, AICPA, and other regulators around the world, will take these business risks and apply them in a new lens in their inspection, peer review, and enforcement processes as they look at how firms have identified and addressed risks when implementing their QC system when it comes to client acceptance. Improving Communications: Predecessor Auditors & Audit Committees Recent PCAOB inspection findings and the Audit Focus document emphasize that engagement acceptance decisions are under increasing scrutiny. Deficiencies in areas like AS 1301 (Communications with Audit Committees) and AS 2610 (Successor Auditor Communications) often stem from weak or incomplete risk assessments at the outset of the engagement. Firms must be prepared to engage in transparent, candid conversations with audit committees, especially when the going gets tough. Whether it’s disclosing an unanticipated CAM , identifying a material weakness in internal control , or explaining a shift in audit scope, the ability to communicate openly and credibly is a hallmark of audit quality. Similarly, in our article on audit committees , we emphasized that audit committees are becoming more sophisticated and assertive. They expect auditors to be proactive, risk-aware, and ready to explain their judgments—not just their procedures. The Audit Focus does a great job of asking questions for firms to consider in assessing the quality of both management and the AC. As part of your engagement acceptance process, assess not only the technical risks of the engagement, but also the firm’s ability to maintain transparency and trust with the audit committee. Ask: Will we be able to have frank conversations with this client’s governance team? Are we prepared to deliver difficult messages if needed? Do we have the right people and protocols in place to support those conversations Internal Inspections: Engagement Acceptance as a Root Cause The Audit Focus also highlights how engagement acceptance decisions can directly impact audit quality and inspection outcomes. We encourage firms to examine their internal inspection programs to see how/whether outcomes can inform or rise to potential root causes targeting the firm’s engagement/client acceptance process. For example, a risk-based selection for the annual internal inspection process should include certain jobs tied specifically to new client and new engagements:
Introduction As explored in previous JGA Advisor articles, the implementation of quality management standards such as ISQM 1, SQMS 1, and QC 1000 has reshaped how audit firms approach compliance, risk, and continuous improvement. These standards demand a proactive, risk-based, and firm-wide system of quality management (SoQM) that is both scalable and adaptable to local jurisdictions. We have seen through our work with firms that a tech solution is just part of the equation. Of course, having the right human capital with the capacity, drive, skills, and leadership to influence implementation across so many functions of the firm is critical. Also, understanding a baseline of risks and controls – beyond the minimum explained in the standards – will go a long way for smoother implementation. We recommend taking a look at the AICPA Practice Aid and many other AICPA resources for firms embarking on their implementation journey. While the standards themselves are rigorous, the complexity of implementation—especially across multiple jurisdictions—has led many firms to look to ways to document their system with reliable workflows in a database or other system. What we have seen is that – at a minimum – an excel solution, especially coupled with other tools like smart sheets, is the easiest entry point for a tech solution for implementation. Other more advanced tools not only streamline compliance but also enhance documentation, accountability, and real-time monitoring. In this article, we explore how three platforms—Inflo, Caseware, and QMCore—are helping firms meet these challenges and elevate their quality management systems. Why Software Matters for Quality Management Successfully implementing a SoQM under ISQM 1, SQMS 1, QC 1000, or other jurisdictional standards requires more than policies and procedures—it requires leadership, training, communication, and a culture of quality. But most importantly, it requires technology. Software platforms like QMCore, Inflo, and Caseware offer firms the ability to: Assign and track ownership of quality tasks across the firm, ensuring accountability, and transparency. Streamline risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation, which are core to all modern quality management standards. Provide real-time reporting and dashboards that allow leadership to monitor compliance and identify deficiencies early. Adapt to evolving regulatory requirements across jurisdictions, including CSQM 1 (Canada), SSQM 1 (Singapore), ASQM 1 (Australia), and PES 3 (South Africa). Educate and enable staff through embedded guidance, links to standards, and intuitive workflows. For firms evaluating whether to adopt software, the key considerations should include: scalability, jurisdictional adaptability, ease of implementation, audit trail integrity, and the ability to evolve with regulatory changes. We strongly suggest taking a look at our previous guidance on adoption of software audit tools as well. There are other applications being developed for the market as well. Inflo: A Centralized Platform for Quality Management Oversight Inflo’s Quality Management solution is designed to help firms implement and maintain a System of Quality Management (SoQM) that aligns with ISQM 1 and other global standards. Unlike traditional tools that focus solely on audit execution, Inflo’s platform provides a centralized environment for managing the entire quality lifecycle—from risk assessment to monitoring and remediation. Key Features of Inflo’s Quality Management Platform: Centralized Oversight: Inflo consolidates all quality management activities into a single platform, giving firm leadership real-time visibility into the status of quality objectives, risks, and responses. Customizable Risk Assessment: Firms can tailor their risk identification and assessment processes to reflect their unique service lines, geographies, and regulatory environments. Automated Monitoring & Remediation: Inflo streamlines the tracking of deficiencies and corrective actions, ensuring that issues are addressed promptly and transparently. Evidence of Compliance: The platform maintains a complete audit trail of all quality management activities, supporting both internal reviews and external inspections. Scalable Across Jurisdictions: Inflo’s solution is adaptable to various regulatory frameworks, making it suitable for firms operating in multiple countries or under different standard-setting bodies. By integrating quality management into a digital workflow, Inflo helps firms move beyond static documentation and toward a dynamic, data-driven approach to compliance and continuous improvement. Caseware: Integrated Methodology and Real-Time Collaboration Caseware’s cloud-based platform, particularly through its Dynamic Audit Solution (DAS), offers a comprehensive approach to quality management. Built in collaboration with CPA.com and the AICPA, Caseware provides: End-to-End Audit Workflow: Integrating methodology, workpapers, and execution tools in a single environment. Real-Time Collaboration: Enabling teams to work simultaneously on engagements, improving efficiency and reducing version control issues. Data-Driven Risk Assessment: Supporting a risk-focused audit approach aligned with ISQM 1 and SQMS 1. Caseware is especially effective for firms embedding quality management into daily audit operations while maintaining compliance with evolving standards. QMCore (FinReg): Purpose-Built for Global Quality Management Standards QMCore, developed by FinReg, is a purpose-built platform designed to help firms implement and maintain a System of Quality Management (SoQM) in compliance with ISQM 1, SQMS 1, QC 1000, and their global counterparts. It is powered by the FinReg GRC platform and has received technology accreditation from the ICAEW. Key Benefits of QMCore: Comprehensive Coverage: Seamlessly integrates all eight components of ISQM 1 and SQMS 1, including governance, risk assessment, monitoring, and remediation Task Ownership and Accountability: Allows firms to assign responsibilities clearly and track progress with ease Monitoring & Remediation: Embedded tools provide high visibility into deficiencies and corrective actions, with real-time dashboards and drill-down analytics Jurisdictional Flexibility: Adaptable to regional standards such as CSQM 1, SSQM 1, ASQM 1, and PES 3 Audit Trail Integrity: Tracks all inputs and changes, ensuring transparency and defensibility; and User Enablement: Educates staff on the standards, enables them to act, and evidences compliance through structured workflows and embedded guidance. QMCore is securely hosted on AWS and accessed via the internet, making it easy to implement and scale across firms of varying sizes and geographies. Conclusion The shift to modern quality management standards is not just a compliance exercise—it’s an opportunity to enhance audit quality, improve operational efficiency, and build a culture of continuous improvement. Software platforms like Inflo, Caseware, and QMCore are proving essential in helping firms navigate this transformation. Other players may be entering the market, and we encourage a discussion to understand the latest and compare benefits and what’s best for your firm. 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 .
This is an exert of the AI Accounting Playbook . Building Trust in AI Accounting As accounting firms adopt AI tools in audits, they face new questions about reliability, transparency, and compliance. Regulators like the PCAOB have made clear that if AI outputs can’t be explained or reproduced, they could violate existing standards. Yet formal guidance on AI use in audits remains limited, leaving firms unsure about how to move forward. Some firms have responded by limiting AI to non-public clients, but this caution also presents a chance to lead. Firms that build strong AI governance practices now can stay ahead of future regulation and establish trust in their use of AI. This chapter covers key compliance barriers, governance best practices, and steps to create a trusted control environment. Key Compliance Barriers Accountants face several key compliance barriers when using AI, particularly as regulators such as the PCAOB, AICPA, and SEC increase their scrutiny. Explainability One major challenge is explainability. Many AI models, especially machine learning and generative AI, don’t clearly show how they reach conclusions. This is a problem for auditors who need to support their findings. This lack of clarity makes it harder to meet audit evidence requirements, which must be sufficient, appropriate, and easy to understand, as outlined in PCAOB standard AS 1105. Poor Documentation Poor documentation is another major issue. This includes inadequate records of data inputs and outputs, training data, model logic, and controls over changes. Such deficiencies may violate documentation and risk assessment requirements, as seen when audit teams use AI for journal entry testing without documenting the rationale for flagged entries or threshold settings. Data Privacy Data privacy becomes a concern as firms use AI to handle large amounts of sensitive financial and personal information. This can lead to violations of laws like GDPR and CCPA, especially when client data is processed in cloud or third-party systems. Firms often struggle to maintain consistent policies for data classification, encryption, and access. Auditor independence may also be at risk if AI tools are built by a firm’s advisory armor are deeply integrated with a client’s systems. For instance, if both the firm and client use the same predictive AI tool for forecasting, it could lead to a self-review threat. AI Skills Gap A skills gap and overreliance on AI further complicate compliance. Many auditors lack the training needed to critically evaluate AI outputs or to recognize when human judgment should override algorithmic conclusions. This can lead to audit failures, such as misinterpreting a false negative from an AI-driven risk assessment as a clean result. Validation and Testing Testing and validating AI tools is another challenge, especially for tools that keep learning over time. Firms need to test tools when they’re first used and then on a regular basis, just like they do when relying on third-party service providers. But this is hard to do if the AI vendor doesn’t offer enough detail about how the tool works or the controls in place. Change Management Managing updates and changes to AI models is a concern. If a tool is updated or retrained without documentation, it can lead to inconsistent results. For example, a model may flag different transactions in different quarters without any clear reason why. Many firms also lack a formal AI governance plan tied to their quality management systems, which causes inconsistent control practices and unclear responsibilities. Lack of Guidance Regulators have been slow to issue formal guidance on how AI should be integrated into the audit process, leaving many firms in a state of uncertainty. The good news is that momentum is building. PCAOB Board Member Christina Ho has publicly emphasized the transformative potential of AI in auditing, particularly in automating routine tasks such as cross-referencing data, extracting key contract terms, and documenting interviews. She has advocated for the PCAOB to evolve its standards to promote responsible AI use, calling for transparency, bias mitigation, and auditability in AI tools. Similarly, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) has demonstrated its commitment to supporting firms by releasing its Technology Position, which is a strategic framework that outlines how the board will adapt auditing standards to align with emerging technologies, including AI. Until these guardrails are firmly in place, firms should proactively develop internal AI frameworks modeled on established control standards. COBIT can support firms in assessing and governing AI systems, including data and system integrity. COSO can be applied to evaluate AI governance, model risk, and internal control implications, particularly when AI impacts financial reporting or ICFR. NIST provides guidance to help firms build trustworthy AI systems and establish appropriate cyber security and governance protocols. Best Practices for Governance To use AI confidently and compliantly in accounting, especially in regulated environments like audit and assurance, firms should implement strong governance practices that align with both regulatory expectations and ethical standards. 1. Test AI Internally Before Use In Engagements Before you bring AI into your audits, you’ll need to put it through its paces. The starting point is an internal review and certification process, ideally led by your firm’s risk or national office. They should evaluate the AI tool’s design, logic, and controls, and may require your vendor to share documentation, control reports, and allow independent testing. A great way to do this is by running the AI on historical data from past audits with known results. That helps confirm whether the AI delivers the same conclusions auditors already reached. Scenario analysis is another smart move. Challenge the AI with tricky edge cases like known fraud or anomalies. This can expose blind spots or bias in the model. Be sure to maintain a complete audit trail of how the tool was tested and what controls were in place. If any issues pop up during testing, document and resolve them. And before you roll it out firm-wide, get an independent review of the tool. Think of it like a second set of eyes, similar to a concurring partner review. Only once your firm is fully confident in the tool should it be used in your accounting processes. 2. Develop AI Governance Policies Strong policies lay the foundation for responsible AI use. These should outline your standards for data inputs, risk reviews, decision-making responsibilities, and transparency. Deloitte recommends a universal governance policy that applies to all AI technologies across the firm. This policy should define acceptable (and prohibited) use cases, require approval for new AI tools, and establish review intervals. Ethical usage also needs to be a priority. That means clear guidelines around privacy, bias, and legal compliance — with transparency as a core value. Internally and externally, stakeholders should understand when and how AI is being used in order to build trust in AI usage. To oversee this, consider forming a dedicated AI GRC (Governance, Risk, Compliance) team. Roles might include a Chief AI Risk Officer, Data Protection Manager, AI Project Manager, and an AI Governance Committee. Need help building your framework? Look to proven models like NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001. COSO’s recent guide Realize the Full Potential of AI shows how to extend COSO’s ERM framework to AI, and it’s a great place to start. 3. Implement Data Quality Controls AI tools are only as reliable as the data they process. The old adage “garbage in, garbage out” underscores the importance of data quality in AI-driven accounting. To minimize the risk of inaccurate or biased AI outputs, firms should implement data validation, cleansing, and standardization processes. High-quality data improves AI performance and supports more reliable audit conclusions. Protecting sensitive data is also crucial. Firms should limit access to confidential information using role-based access controls (RBAC) and multi-factor authentication (MFA). Audit logs tracking data access provide an added layer of oversight, helping firms monitor and secure critical information. Data lifecycle management is equally important. Retention and deletion policies should be in place to ensure outdated data does not become a liability. While GDPR is an EU regulation, it sets a high standard for data management and serves as a strong benchmark for firms looking to enhance their data governance practices
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Johnson Global is proud to announce our first charitable contribution in support of the daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) —a historic nonprofit organization founded in 1890 and dedicated to historic preservation, education, and patriotism. With over 130 years of tradition and more than one million members since its founding, the DAR continues to make a meaningful impact through local, national, and global initiatives. "We are honored to support an organization whose enduring mission aligns with our values and commitment to community" said Jackson Johnson, JGA President. "This partnership marks a significant milestone for Johnson Global Advisory as we expand our philanthropic efforts and invest in organizations creating lasting, positive change". "Thank you JGA for this impactful donation will allow our chapter to continue our mission" said Jill Mathieu, Regent of DAR. To explore more about the impact of DAR, visit: www.dar.org/discover 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 incorporate solutions which navigate those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
Johnson Global Advisory ("JGA") is proud to announce that Joe Lynch, Shareholder and Managing Director, will be speaking on a panel at the 40th Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum . Joe will deliver the PCAOB update on June 6, with attendance available both in person and virtually. This panel will summarize the activities of the PCAOB including: • Understand the current regulatory landscape and emerging issues under new SEC leadership • Summarize rulemaking from the FASB’s technical agenda, including segment reporting and disaggregation of income statement expenses • Anticipate accounting and reporting issues incurred with income taxes, including ASU 2023-09 “Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures” • Identify changes from the FASB on accounting for financial instruments • Prepare for disclosure requirements on ESG and climate change, including the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the requirements of California’s ESG disclosures legislation and the status of the SEC final rule • Recall recent developments and the most frequent comment areas in the SEC review process Click here to register and learn more. 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 incorporate solutions which navigate those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
On May 13th, 2025, the PCAOB held a QC 1000 workshop in Washington, DC, providing critical insights into the upcoming quality control standard. With the effective date of December 15th, 2025 , firms must proactively identify and manage quality risks by setting quality objectives, assessing risks, and implementing responses. Examples and case studies with breakout groups played a crucial role to help firms understand and apply each stage of the implementation process, from risk assessment to monitoring and remediation. Many attendees are still early in their understanding of the standard, highlighting the need for clear guidance and support. In a live poll, a significant portion of the workshop attendees indicated they have not yet started implementation. The inspection approach of QC 1000 has not been finalized. As such, they did not take any questions regarding how this would be inspected in its formative years. However, we did read between the lines from a different question around audit documentation, that it’s possible they may select components on a test basis during an inspection. Background of the Standard The QC 1000 standard emphasizes the integration of eight components: the risk assessment process, governance and leadership, ethics and independence, acceptance and continuance of engagements, engagement performance, resources, information & communication, and monitoring and remediation process. For more background information on QC 1000, please see these JGA resources: Applying the QC 1000 and Other Standards to Your Firm Understanding the Broader Benefits of ISQM 1 and SQMS 1 Applying the Benefits of ISQM 1 & SQMS 1 Across the Firm Key Topics from the Workshop Key terms such as applicable professional and legal requirements (APLR), firm personnel, other participants, and third-party providers were defined to clarify roles and responsibilities within the firm's QC system. The workshop included a walkthrough of Appendix A2 of the standard. The firm’s system must consider the APLRs that are applicable to the firm, which is unique to each firm. APLR is defined in the standard as: Professional standards, as defined in PCAOB Rule 1001(p)(vi); Rules of the PCAOB that are not professional standards; and To the extent related to the obligations and responsibilities of accountants or auditors in the conduct of engagements or in relation to the QC system, rules of the SEC, other provisions of U.S. federal securities law, ethics laws and regulations, and other applicable statutory, regulatory, and other legal requirements. It is important to be able to clearly identify the type of resource in your QC 1000 implementation journey. Paragraph .05 also discusses the terms firm personnel, other participants and third-party providers. These are defined in Appendix A.5 (firm personnel), A.7 (other participants) and A.13 (third -party providers). 1. Firm personnel include: EQR (inside the firm), Staff at shared service centers, secondees and leased staff, specialists employed by the firm. 2. Other participants include other auditors, EQR (outside the firm), internal auditors of the client that provide direct assistance to the auditors, specialists engaged by the firm, Networks, and external QC function. 3. Third-party providers include audit software providers, system security vendor, audit methodology provider, confirmation intermediary, pricing services, and broker-dealer monitoring systems. There are four distinct roles and responsibilities as described in paragraphs .11 -.17 of the QC standard. The first two roles are the certifiers of the Firm’s QC results: 1. The principal executive officer and 2. Individual responsible for the operational responsibility and accountability for the QC system as a whole. The principal executive officer (PEO) is ultimately responsible for the design, implementation, operation, and evaluation of the firm’s QC system. Only firm personnel are permitted to fill the roles required by QC 1000 . JGA Insights: 1. Not all “participants” of a firm’s structure must be included in a firm's quality control policies and procedures, which is especially important for shared service centers and outsourced staffing arrangements. These roles must be clearly defined and applied as the different levels of participants within an organization are considered differently by the standard. 2. PCAOB-registered firms of all sizes – regardless of whether the firm currently audits issuers – must adhere to these components, ensuring consistency with international quality control frameworks. 3. While it was expressed in the session by PCAOB Staff that firms are not expected to reengineer their process (e.g. more than 1 set of QC documentation), firms may need to align or “top-up” their processes with multiple standards to ensure comprehensive compliance. Keep in mind here that the top-up may not just be for QC 1000. In fact, a system in compliance with QC 1000 may need top-up considerations for SQMS 1 and/or ISQM 1. Risk Assessment Principles There were several examples and case studies to go through among table groups during the session. These activities helped illustrate the importance of getting risk assessment right, since this drives what the firm focuses on for an effective system. When it comes to implementing QC 1000, there are some key takeaways from the risk assessment process that can really guide firms in the right direction. JGA Insights: Here are a few important points to keep in mind as you work through identifying and assessing quality risks 1. The QC 1000 standard does not prescribe a specific method for identifying and assessing quality risks. This gives firms flexibility but also places responsibility on each firm individually based on their circumstances. It’s more work upfront from a “cookie-cutter” approach but ensures the design of a process that fits a firm’s unique context. 2. Quality risks should not be viewed as the opposite of quality objectives . Instead, they are factors that could potentially hinder the achievement of those objectives. 3. The threshold of “reasonable possibility of occurring” applies to all risks, including risks of intentional misconduct by firm personnel and other participants. This means that firms must consider the likelihood of risks occurring and their potential impact on the quality objectives. The PCAOB staff shared during the workshop that the concept of reasonably possible follows the same definition as used in FASB ASC Topic 450 on Contingencies. Ethics and Independence Considerations The QC 1000 standard does not alter existing ethics and independence requirements under PCAOB or SEC standards. Firms must continue to comply with those as currently written. Compared to other standards like ISQM 1 and SQMS 1, QC 1000 is more stringent in certain areas. For example, it requires: 1. Creating and maintaining a restricted entity list; 2. Periodic review of the list to ensure accuracy; 3. Appropriate certifications related to independence; and 4. Audit committee approvals where applicable. Register for the next workshop and get going on implementation To gain a deeper understanding of the QC 1000 standard and its implementation, we strongly encourage you to attend the PCAOB Smaller Firm Workshop on June 17, 2025, in Irving, Texas. This in-person-only session will provide valuable insights and practical guidance for firms navigating the new quality control standard. Register now to secure your spot. As always, reach out to your JGA Expert with any questions. 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 incorporate solutions which navigate those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Johnson Global is pleased to announce that Joe Lynch, JGA Managing Director will speak at the AICPA® & CIMA® ENGAGE+ 25 on May 15, 2025, and will be attending the full conference on June 9–12, 2025, at the ARIA Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, NV and live online. This CPE-eligible event is the premier annual event for accounting and finance professionals, bringing together thousands of peers, experts, and industry leaders for top-tier learning, networking, and career growth opportunities. Register by May 1, 2025, to take advantage of Early Bird rates— $1,995 for members ( regularly $2,095 ) and $2,445 for nonmembers ( regularly $2,545 ). *PCPS, Tax and PFP section members and CITP®, PFS™, CGMA® credential holders save an additional $150 . Discount reflected in section member/credential pricing during checkout. Register Today ! 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.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is proud to sponsor the Accountants' Liability Conference hosted by ALI-CLE. This two-day event will take place in Washington, D.C. and virtually on June 2nd and 3rd. This is an excellent opportunity to gain valuable insights into a wide range of critical issues. The 2025 conference will focus on audits and oversight, providing essential guidance to help you navigate the evolving landscape of regulatory compliance and better protect your firm and clients. “We are pleased to sponsor this conference for the last several years. This event brings together top law firms, internal counsel, and risk experts for dynamic discussions on trending topics such as accounting liability and other important issues affecting the profession,” said Jackson Johnson, JGA President. “I look forward to personally engaging with participants, presenters, and stakeholders at this conference.” This year’s program is still being finalized but planned topics include: Recent Trends in Accounting Litigation Living in a post- Jarkesy world The future of enforcement PCAOB inspection program update SEC perspectives on gatekeeper liability AI and emerging technologies in the accounting industry Accounting firms entering the legal space International firm considerations Alternative practice structures and AICPA independence rules Register by April 25 to attend in-person and use the code “ JGA ” to save $250 off . OR, for webcast attendance, use the code " JOHNSON " to save $125 off the tuition. Click here to register. About Johnson Global Advisory JGA is dedicated to helping public accounting firms around the globe achieve the highest level of audit quality. All CPAs and former PCAOB inspection staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical about working alongside firm leadership to ensure the right controls, policies, and practices are implemented throughout the organization. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) makes third annual contribution to the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Kansas City. The 29th Annual Kids Night Out is scheduled for Saturday, April 26, 2025, and promises to be an unforgettable evening, bringing together over 1,500 guests to support the children served by Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City. “We’re thrilled to continue our support for the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Kansas City. This marks our third year backing this chapter, and I know that many of our JGA employees have personally benefited from the programs the Boys & Girls Clubs offer nationwide,” said Jackson Johnson, JGA President. “Kids Night Out is Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City’s biggest fundraiser each year– and all dollars raised stay right here in Kansas City”, said Andy Burczyk, Board Member and Chair of Kids Night Out. “This organization is doing extraordinary things, and it is because we as a community invest in their impact.” For over 100 years, Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Kansas City has provided a safe, supportive environment for youth. Serving over 8,000 kids and teens annually across 11 locations, the organization helps young people achieve their full potential through programs that promote academic success, healthy lifestyles, and character development. Through mentoring and leadership training, they equip members with the skills needed for success now and in the To learn more information on the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Kansas City and their work with the youth, please visit www.bgc-gkc.org . About Johnson Global Advisory JGA is dedicated to helping public accounting firms around the globe achieve the highest level of audit quality. All CPAs and former PCAOB inspection staff, as well as JGA professionals, are passionate and practical about working alongside firm leadership to ensure the right controls, policies, and practices are implemented throughout the organization. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is proud to provide a financial contribution to Sustainable Harvest International (“SHI”). SHI is a nonprofit helping Central American farmers adopt sustainable farming practices for over 27 years. Their mission is to address the destruction of tropical forests caused by slash-and-burn farming and logging. SHI’s mission benefits both current and future generations by equipping farmers with the knowledge to farm sustainably. “We’re proud to partner with Sustainable Harvest International in their important work,” said Jackson Johnson, JGA President. “This collaboration helps drive lasting, positive changes and by backing such vital organizations, we stay true to our mission of giving back and making a real difference. JGA’s philanthropic efforts focus on supporting organizations that are important to our people. I appreciate Vernon sharing his experience as a board member and we are grateful to work with him to amplify this organization.” Vernon Johnson, JGA Director, is a Board Member and Treasurer for SHI. He is actively involved in this organization. "My nonprofit work has helped me maintain perspective in both life and at work,” said Vernon. “It’s taught me to stay calm during challenges and focus on the bigger picture. This experience has improved my relationships and made me more resilient in stressful situations. My advice to busy professionals is to step back, appreciate the simple things, and not sweat the small stuff—being thankful and present can make a big difference." To learn more about SHI, visit www.sustainableharvest.org/donate . About Johnson Global Advisory JGA is dedicated to helping public accounting firms around the globe achieve the highest level of audit quality. All CPAs and former PCAOB inspection staff and JGA professionals are passionate and practical about working alongside firm leadership to ensure the right controls, policies, and practices are implemented throughout the organization. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.
