Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Blog – Full Posts

What 15 Years of Running an Accounting Firm Taught Marcus Dillon About Building Something That Lasts

· ·

Imagine the managing partner of a $35 million accounting firm. Twenty-four partners. A hundred and fifty team members. And this managing partner still carries the largest book of business in the entire organization.

Now hold that image and set it next to another one. A husband-and-wife team in San Antonio running an $11.5 million firm. Three people at the top. Zero billable production hours between them. And by Marcus Dillon’s account, they’re “having a whole lot more fun than the people who are maintaining client work.”

Same profession. Radically different firms. And only one of those models is built to thrive in the future.

That contrast sparked a conversation between Marcus and Rachel Dillon on a recent episode of Who’s Really the Boss? The episode marks a milestone. Dillon Business Advisors is approaching its 15th anniversary, and the Dillons use the occasion to walk through what Marcus calls the “3.0” chapter of their firm. The last five years have brought reinvention, painful lessons, and hard-won clarity about what actually creates lasting value in an accounting practice.

After 15 years and three distinct reinventions, the Dillons believe the firms most likely to thrive in the next chapter of this profession build for enterprise value. That means creating role-based team structures instead of depending on irreplaceable individuals. It means developing real leadership beyond the founder. And it means maintaining enough flexibility to navigate a future where AI, private equity, and market consolidation reshape the rules faster than most owners realize.

Here are the three interconnected lessons from DBA’s journey through their third reinvention.

Building around roles, not people

For roughly six years, Dillon Business Advisors was stuck. Revenue hovered between $2 million and $2.3 million in what Marcus describes as a “yo-yo effect” of exiting clients, growing organically, exiting clients, and growing organically again. They were trying to shift from annual compliance touchpoints to monthly recurring advisory work, but the team that excelled at cranking out tax returns once a year wasn’t necessarily the team best suited to serve clients month after month with real-time advice.

“The business was moving that way, regardless of whether that team member was coming or not,” Marcus explains. And that created a problem no amount of hoping could solve.

The breakthrough came when Marcus and Rachel stopped trying to clone people and started building around roles.

DBA already had the client service manager (CSM) who handled day-to-day communication and bookkeeping. They also had the director-level advisory role at the top. But there was a gap between those two. The client controller or tax manager role wasn’t consistent. Marcus says they “experimented, screwed up, and scrapped different ideas” before landing on what became the team of three: a defined, role-based pod assigned to every client throughout the year.

The team of three model bases assignments on role, not on specific people. 

“We made some mistakes by trying to recreate or clone a person, and you just can’t do that,” Marcus explains. Over 15 years, he’s watched team members leave, partners come and go, and clients move on. “Nothing is forever anymore. If you’re building all of your decisions around taking care of the team you have today, that’s kind of shortsighted.”

Rachel offers a personal window into why this mindset shift was hard. Both her parents essentially worked for the same employer throughout their careers. “Staying 20, 30, or 40 years at a job isn’t the norm anymore,” she says.

Once DBA embraced role-based structure, two things happened. First, the firm could absorb turnover without chaos. Second, teams got remarkably efficient. The team of three created so much capacity that team members started asking for more work. Clients knew their team. The team knew their clients. Life was good, maybe too good. Because when DBA looked up in 2024, they’d already converted every annual client to monthly recurring, and they were entirely dependent on organic growth for new business.

But the structural foundation enabled something most small firms never achieve: a real leadership team beyond the founders.

Amy McCarty joined as Director of Operations at the end of 2023. Lezlie Reeves, who started as a CSM in 2020, rose through every level to become Director of Accounting and Advisory. In 2024, Angel Sabino transitioned from being DBA’s external IT provider to Director of Technology. Arin Neucks joined as Director of Tax and Financial Planning. Amy and Lezlie now hold phantom stock in DBA and share in decision-making as owners would.

Meanwhile, Marcus’s own production hours dropped to between 200 and 300 annually over the last two to three years. Rather than backfilling that time with more client work, he channeled it into consulting other firm owners, advising technology companies, and leading industry groups, work that, as he puts it, “gives me life.”

The discipline to stay out of operations was tough. Marcus admits that earlier in DBA’s history, he’d “pull a pin and throw a grenade in it just to rebuild it.” The result was predictable. “You have collateral damage. People get hurt, and they leave because you don’t allow them to do the job you hired them for.”

Building around roles sounds simple. But getting there required some expensive lessons.

The cost of reinvention

If the team of three was the structural breakthrough of DBA’s 3.0 chapter, the path to getting there was paved with decisions that cost real money. Some were strategically brilliant, some were painfully expensive.

Start with the audit practice. DBA exited it around the beginning of 3.0, freeing the firm to go all-in on monthly CAS and advisory. Revenue temporarily dropped in 2021. PPP and ERC consulting work softened the blow, but DBA performed that work exclusively for existing clients. “We didn’t do that for any external non-existing clients,” Marcus emphasizes. “We only took care of our own during that time.”

But the client exits didn’t stop there. Over seven years, DBA performed roughly one exit per year, and sometimes two. They shed complex, non-ideal QuickBooks Desktop clients who didn’t fit the monthly recurring model. The last cut might have gone too deep.

“That very last exit we probably could have done without,” Marcus reflects. The final group made up roughly $100,000 in revenue. They’d made it through multiple prior cuts. “Margins were high on those clients, even if they were annual-only touchpoints. They were so easy.”

During those transition years, DBA created a bonus pool shared with the entire team for every new monthly engagement signed, regardless of who worked on that client. The goal was rewiring how everyone thought about client relationships.

Then came the most expensive mistake of 3.0.

At the end of 2022, DBA changed its name and domain, dropping “CPA” from the branding. The rationale made sense. “CPA” directed too much tax-only traffic when the firm had evolved beyond compliance work. But the execution was catastrophic.

“We lost all of our credibility overnight from an SEO optimization, from a recognition standpoint,” Marcus says. The domain redirects (the technical plumbing that preserves search engine authority when you change web addresses) were botched. Traffic from Google searches “almost completely dropped off for more than a year.”

The worst part was DBA hired a consulting company to manage the transition and paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it still didn’t go well.”

“Don’t take anyone’s word for it when they say you just have to give it some time,” Rachel warned. “That’s definitely not the case.” Recovery took three to four years.

The firm also evolved to fully remote operations during this period, opening hiring beyond Texas to anywhere in the US and even offshore. Two team members moving to Colorado helped push this transition. But going national meant growing up operationally, adding proper benefits, launching a 401(k) with profit sharing in 2020, and eventually moving to a PEO to handle multi-state compliance.

By 2024, with excess capacity from the efficient team structure but organic growth harder to come by, the leadership had to restructure and cut, or go back to market. They chose growth. DBA completed two strategic acquisitions in 2024, one at the end of January and a larger one on October 1. The October acquisition represented about 25% of DBA’s revenue, a cap Marcus set intentionally. “We wanted to retain DBAs’ culture, processes, and technology.”

Today, DBA exceeds $6 million in revenue. But with that scale comes bigger questions about the future.

Two types of firms, one uncertain future

With a leadership team that can run the firm without Marcus touching a tax return, the question shifted from survival to direction. Marcus has conversations with firm leaders across the spectrum that reveal patterns every firm owner needs to understand.

At a breakfast with the $35 million firm’s managing partner, Marcus heard a framework that crystallized his thinking. Two firms exist in today’s market: the legacy firm, where the balance sheet is essentially a snapshot of human relationships, and the enterprise-value firm, where systems, processes, and technology create value independent of any single person.

“That first firm will continue to diminish in value just because they’re not going to be relevant in this next chapter,” Marcus says. Relationships matter, but they alone aren’t enough when private equity, alternative ownership structures, and AI permanently reshape the landscape.

Marcus sees three types of firms emerging:

First, solo and micro firms powered by AI. As larger firms consolidate, team members leave and launch practices that leverage tools like Copilot and Cowork to run $300,000 to $1 million operations without traditional employees. “If you can get $300,000 to $400,000 or more worth of work done as a solo firm owner, by all means, great.”

Second, mid-size firms like DBA, that invest in teams, leadership, and technology and build something meant to outlast the founder.

Third, large rolled-up or PE-backed organizations with the budget to deploy technology at scale.

The parallel to other industries is instructive. DBA’s dental and veterinary clients went through consolidation first. Banking followed. “Independent banking is very hard and it has to be very intentional for them to exist,” Marcus observes. For independent medical practices, “you may not have the patient base you want. You may not be able to hire and pay the team you want.”

And then there’s AI, which Marcus frames as Pac-Man moving from the bottom up. “If you’ve got technology that’s coming for you and you’re just standing there, game over.”

The solution is continuous upskilling. “You can’t not train somebody because you’re worried they’re going to outgrow you and leave.”

This leaves DBA in a deliberate state of discernment.

Marcus spends time with firms of every size, learning what $10 million firms struggle with, how $35 million firms think about technology, and what happens when $250 million firms acquire smaller practices. Part of this is strategic intelligence gathering. But it also positions DBA to attract great clients and talent when they leave larger organizations.

The Dillons haven’t decided to merge, sell, take PE money, or stay independent. They’re building what Marcus calls “optionality.” The leadership team now plans in one- to three-year windows. As Rachel notes, even five years out is difficult to predict “because we don’t even know what the next six months, 12 months, or 18 months will bring.”

Marcus grounds it all in stewardship. “If I’m no longer the best single owner of this business, what does that look like?” He’s asking the question. He’s just refusing to answer it prematurely, or out of fear.

“It’s not a bad idea to pause and pray and wait for your decision to be the right one for you and at the right time,” he says. “Other friends are doing deals, don’t feel pressure to do your own and do a bad one.”

What 15 years of reinvention actually teaches

DBA’s journey distills into three lessons that apply whether you run a $1 million practice or a $100 million operation.

  1. Build around roles, not people. The team of three made DBA resilient enough to absorb turnover and efficient enough to create real capacity. If your firm collapses when one key employee leaves, you have a structural problem. Define the roles that make service consistent regardless of who fills them.
  2. Expect real pain on the path to enterprise value. DBA didn’t reach $6 million by making perfect decisions. They arrived by making intentional ones and refusing to let mistakes paralyze them.
  3. Independence requires more intentionality, not less. Standing still is a decision, and increasingly a bad one. Whether you stay independent, merge, or take investment, the question is whether you’re adding enterprise value daily, or performing tasks technology will soon handle better.

The Dillons share what they’ve learned while figuring out their own path. After 15 years and three reinventions, they’ve earned the right to take their time with the next decision.

Listen to the full episode to hear Marcus and Rachel walk through every chapter of DBA’s evolution, including the specific conversations happening right now about what this profession’s next chapter actually looks like.

Rachel and Marcus Dillon, CPA, own a Texas-based, remote client accounting and advisory services firm, Dillon Business Advisors, with a team of 15 professionals. Their latest organization, Collective by DBA, supports and guides accounting firm owners and leaders with firm resources, education, and operational strategy through community, groups, and one-on-one advisory.

Phar-Mor’s Inventory Was Just Merchandise Driving Around in Circles on Trucks

· ·

In 1992, a professional basketball league folded overnight because something had gone catastrophically wrong at a discount drugstore chain in Youngstown, Ohio. When Phar-Mor went down, it took with it 25,000 jobs, $1.1 billion in investor money, and a basketball league with one bizarre rule: no players taller than 6’5″.

This wild story comes from Oh My Fraud, the true crime podcast where host Caleb Newquist digs into financial scandals with the kind of detail accounting professionals love. In this episode, Caleb unpacks one of the largest retail frauds in American history and how it started with something shockingly simple.

Picture a young CFO walking into his boss’s office with bad news about company losses. The boss takes the report, crosses out the real numbers with a pen, and writes in fake ones. Then, after doing this himself for four months, he hands the pen to the CFO and says, “Your turn.”

That’s how a $1.1 billion fraud begins.

 

The City That Needed to Believe

To understand how Phar-Mor fooled everyone, you first need to understand Youngstown, Ohio, because the two are inseparable.

For most of the 20th century, Youngstown was a steel town where mills ran 24 hours a day. The entire regional economy was essentially one giant bet that steel would stay relevant forever. Starting in 1977, during a period locals still call Black Monday, the mills began closing quickly. Tens of thousands of jobs vanished. Within a few years, the city lost a quarter of its population.

The mayor of Youngstown later described the city’s psychology this way: “You’re always insecure when you lose 5,000 jobs. It’s kind of a neurosis in a community where people assume the worst. Someone who has been beaten up so much expects to be beaten up again.”

Michael “Mickey” Monus walked into this beaten-down environment in 1982. A Youngstown native educated at Babson College, Mickey wasn’t naturally charismatic. Newsweek described him as someone who “seems to have been born without any natural grace. His large, fleshy face wasn’t brightened by warmth or an easy smile. He liked to dress casually, but still looked stiff.” A local columnist was even more blunt, calling Mickey “Unprepossessing.”

But Mickey had the ability to make people believe. And in a city desperate for hope, that was everything.

Power Buying and Phantom Profits

Mickey partnered with David Shapira, heir to the Giant Eagle supermarket empire, to launch Phar-Mor. The concept was simple: a deep-discount drugstore selling everything at prices so low they almost didn’t make sense. Mickey called it “power buying.” Stockpile goods when suppliers offer rock-bottom deals on huge volumes, then pass the savings to customers.

The growth was explosive. One store became two, then eight, within a year. By 1988, there were about 100 stores. By 1990, more than 200 stores were generating over $2 billion in annual sales.

Sam Walton, the legendary founder of Walmart, publicly stated Mickey and Phar-Mor were the only competition he genuinely feared. As board member Anthony Cafaro recalled, “Sam couldn’t figure out how Phar-Mor’s prices were so low. He could not understand it.”

There was a good reason Sam couldn’t figure it out. Phar-Mor had been losing money every single year since it opened, and almost nobody knew.

In the mid-1980s, Mickey hired Patrick Finn as CFO. Patrick was loyal, relatively inexperienced, and someone who found genuine meaning in accounting’s orderliness. As he later testified, “You could see yourself going after problems, challenging yourself, solving problems in accounting. Things are either right or wrong.”

Patrick found the wrong answer quickly. When he brought the losses to Mickey, his boss took the report, crossed out the real numbers with a pen, and wrote in good ones. Mickey did this himself for four months before turning the job over to Patrick.

“You knew you were doing something wrong, but you never understood how wrong,” Finn later reflected. “Give him time, and he’ll fix the problem.”

So Patrick gave him time. And the fraud grew.

Bucket Accounts and Driving Inventory in Circles

By 1988, the scheme had evolved into systematic inflation of inventory on the balance sheet. Patrick’s team created what they called “bucket accounts.”

After counting inventory at a store, the accounting team would prepare legitimate journal entries for the real books. Then they’d create fraudulent entries to inflate the inventory numbers and dump them into these bucket accounts. The fake entries had telltale signs, like round numbers, no journal entry numbers, vague account names like “accounts receivable, inventory, contra,” and zero supporting documentation.

At year-end, right before the auditors arrived, they’d empty the buckets and spread the fraudulent entries across individual stores, making sure no single location looked obviously wrong.

They kept the real numbers in a separate set of books. John Anderson, brought in from Youngstown State University to help maintain them, later described the culture. “Pat always had an aggressive approach to accounting. Call it aggressive or call it creative. That’s the way it was done ever since I remember.”

By 1990, when Stan Cherelstein joined as comptroller, John closed an office door, pulled out the subledger, and told him the financial statements were misstated by approximately $150 million. Stan stayed, rationalizing that they might be able to fix it through legitimate means. He also admitted to fearing that if he went over their heads, some harm would come to him.

The fraud kept growing, and to survive, it needed auditors who weren’t looking too closely.

The Watchdog That Never Barked

Coopers & Lybrand was one of the world’s most respected accounting firms when it won the Phar-Mor audit. It won with a very competitive bid, which meant a very low price and pressure to cut costs.

Instead of auditing inventory at every Phar-Mor store (there were more than 300), Coopers checked just four stores out of 300. They also told Phar-Mor management months in advance exactly which four stores they’d check.

Think about what that means. If you know Store A is being counted on Tuesday and Store B was counted last week, you load a truck with inventory from Store B and drive it to Store A. The auditors count a beautifully stocked store on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the truck takes everything back. As Caleb puts it, “Hundreds of millions of Phar-Mor’s reported inventory was just merchandise driving around in circles on trucks.”

In 1989, three years into serious fraud, Coopers & Lybrand signed off on financial statements showing Phar-Mor had earned a record profit. A company that had never been profitable was suddenly reporting record earnings, and the auditors said everything looked great.

Patrick couldn’t produce documentation for a single one of those fraudulent journal entries. The auditors kept signing off anyway.

When later asked about it, Coopers’ associate general counsel offered this defense: “An accountant is a watchdog but not a bloodhound.” Caleb counters the watchdog was asleep.

Meanwhile, warning signs kept getting ignored or suppressed.

Red Flags and Ripped-Up Memos

In November 1990, a secretary accidentally sent David the wrong financial report with the real numbers, not the fake ones. David called Patrick to his office, but Patrick didn’t panic. He said those were just preliminary numbers that needed adjustments. David believed him. When you have that much riding on something, you don’t go looking for problems.

Then came Charity Imbrie, Phar-Mor’s legal counsel. At a Las Vegas convention in 1991, she heard vendors complaining about unpaid bills and being pressured to support something called the World Basketball League. She wrote a confidential memo documenting her concerns and sent it to David.

He advised her to “rip it up.”

At the bottom of the memo, Charity noted that David said it was “particularly important to rip it up now because of pending financing.” The $200 million deal closed four weeks later. David stood to make more than $2 million from it.

By spring 1991, Phar-Mor was holding back $150 million it owed to vendors. Stan described the scene: “We had cabinets stuffed with held checks at the company. We couldn’t mail them because if we mailed them, the checks would have bounced.”

Vendors stopped shipping products. Shoppers started noticing empty shelves, a terrible look for a company whose whole promise was low prices on everything.

While the fraud machine was falling apart behind the scenes, Mickey was living a life that should have raised its own questions.

Basketball Leagues and Gold Wedding Dresses

Mickey drew a salary of about $500,000 a year, but he also took extra company money for home renovations, credit card bills, and an engagement ring. His second wedding at the Ritz-Carlton in Palm Beach featured a bride in an 18-karat gold mesh gown valued at more than half a million dollars. The dress came with two armed guards.

He had a suite permanently reserved at Caesars Palace. His associate Tom Zawistowski described the lifestyle: “Life was a game. You’ve got all this money coming through your hands, whether you own it or not. That’s for someone else to decide.”

Then there was the basketball league. In 1987, Mickey co-founded the World Basketball League with one bizarre rule: no player could be taller than 6’5″. Despite having Hall of Famer Bob Cousy as co-founder, real teams, and a TV deal, the league lost an estimated $13,000 per game. Mickey structured it so he owned 60% of every franchise. At its peak with 14 teams, that meant he was covering the majority of massive losses, and it was all bankrolled by Phar-Mor.

Back in Youngstown, Mickey built a 14,000-square-foot mansion with an indoor pool and basketball court. He was part of the ownership group pursuing what would become the Colorado Rockies. In Youngstown, he was bigger than life, a civic deity who could do no wrong.

Until an $80,000 check changed everything.

The Check That Brought Down an Empire

Edward DeBartolo Sr., the shopping mall developer and one of Ohio’s wealthiest men, noticed something odd: an $80,000 check from a Phar-Mor account to a travel agency for the World Basketball League. He tipped off the board. The board started pulling threads. The threads didn’t stop.

The collapse was swift:

  • July 28, 1992: Mickey demoted to vice chairman
  • July 31: Mickey, Patrick, and two executives fired
  • August 1: The World Basketball League implodes mid-season
  • August 4: Phar-Mor announces a $350 million charge against earnings
  • August 17: Bankruptcy filed. 25,000 jobs gone.

The community was divided. One radio caller said: “Al Capone, Dillinger, Monus. They’re all the same. He played Youngstown for a bunch of hicks from Mayberry.” Another defended him, saying, “The Monus family has done more good for this valley than any harm.”

The half-finished mansion sat abandoned behind police barricades, insulation exposed, birds moving in.

Justice, Sort Of

A grand jury indicted Mickey on 129 counts in January 1993. The first trial ended in a mistrial because one juror had been bribed by a Mickey associate. Both were charged with jury tampering.

The second trial in May 1995 produced the expected result: guilty on 109 counts. Mickey got 19.5 years, served ten. Patrick served 33 months. John Anderson and Stan Cherelstein, who knew everything and testified, served no prison time at all.

Coopers & Lybrand settled claims for hundreds of millions of dollars. The reputational damage contributed to their merger with Price Waterhouse, forming PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1998.

What This Means for Accounting Professionals

Caleb distills four crucial lessons from the Phar-Mor disaster:

  • Fraud snowballs. Patrick wasn’t hired to commit fraud. He made one small adjustment, then another, then he was maintaining fake books and helping truck phantom inventory between stores. Each step feels only slightly worse than the last until you’re $1.1 billion deep.
  • Audit procedures matter (a lot). Counting four stores out of 300 and telling management which four a field trip, not an audit. The procedures give fraud room to breathe.
  • Fishy journal entries are red flags. Round numbers, no documentation, no entry numbers, and vague account names are signs somebody is making things up.
  • Watch the lifestyle. When someone’s spending is completely detached from legitimate income, it’s worth questioning.

The Phar-Mor case shows what happens when pressure meets rationalization meets opportunity. The red flags were everywhere, from unexplained journal entries to vendors screaming about unpaid bills and a CEO whose lifestyle made no sense. Every procedural shortcut, unchallenged rationalization, and warning memo that gets ripped up creates space for fraud to grow.

Want to hear the full story with all the jaw-dropping details? Listen to the complete Oh My Fraud episode.

Why Are Big Four Firms Laying Off Partners When There Aren’t Enough Accountants to Go Around?

· ·

The accounting profession is facing turbulence on multiple fronts. KPMG is laying off roughly 100 audit partners in the US, while the best artificial intelligence available still gets one out of every five accounting tasks wrong.

In episode 485 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary unpack these converging stories that show the challenges and opportunities facing the profession. From venture-backed firms abandoning their “automate everything” model to a heated controversy over CPE standards with NASBA, the episode paints a complex picture of an industry in transition.

The Hard Truth About AI’s Current Capabilities

A new benchmark study from DualEntry tested 19 AI models across 101 real accounting workflows, and the results are interesting. Claude Opus 3.5, the current darling of AI enthusiasts, achieved the best performance at 79% accuracy. GPT-4o from OpenAI came in slightly behind at 77%. For context, GPT-4 scored only about 40% on the same tasks. It’s progress, but still nowhere near the reliability accounting demands.

The tests covered transaction classification, journal entry creation, bank reconciliations, and month-end close procedures. As Blake pointed out, the problem compounds. “It’s not like you’re automating 80% of the work because you have to clean up that other 20% the AI messed up.” Those errors cascade through financial statements and create cleanup work that erodes efficiency gains.

David put it in relatable terms. “If you had a human employee and ten hours of the week their work was just wrong, you’d probably freak out.”

The gap between 79% and acceptable accuracy for unsupervised work remains enormous. AI can assist and accelerate, but it can’t yet operate independently in accounting.

Tech Firms Abandon the “Automate Everything” Dream

The accuracy issue explains why venture-backed accounting firms are abandoning their original models. Decimal, which raised significant capital and even acquired KPMG Spark’s client base, pivoted away from providing services directly. Instead, they franchise their technology stack to independent firms that handle the actual client work.

“You can’t have SaaS valuations and raise money when you’re a human service business,” David explained, listing the other casualties, including Bench, ScaleFactor, Visor Tax, and Botkeeper. “We’ve seen this over and over again.”

Pilot made a similar move about six months ago with its “local partners” program that lets small practices use Pilot’s technology rather than Pilot doing the work itself. The technology is valuable, but human expertise is still essential.

Meanwhile, traditional players are moving in. H&R Block’s new CEO wants to transform the company from a once-a-year tax relationship to a year-round partner offering bookkeeping, payroll, and business support. Collective is buying OpenLedger. Even a fractional HR provider Austin Alliance Group wants into the bookkeeping space.

This sparked an interesting debate between the hosts. When discussing whether AI will handle routine work while humans focus on advisory, David pushed back. “I think it’s the opposite. Humans will be more involved in the data entry and the compiling of data. AI is really good at just taking scattered numbers and data, unstructured data and summarizing it, which arguably is advisory.”

Blake disagreed, pointing to a real-world example. A San Francisco store let an AI agent named Luna make operational decisions. Luna understaffed during busy periods, over-ordered candles, and lost $13,000. “AI doesn’t have memory the way people do,” Blake explained. Without context and accumulated experience, AI struggles with strategic decisions.

Big Four Layoffs, Demotions, and Massive Fines

While tech firms pivot, the Big Four face their own challenges. KPMG cut roughly 100 partners from its US audit practice (about 10% of audit partners) after too few accepted voluntary early retirement. The firm calls it “multiyear rightsizing,” but as David asked, “Does audit demand ever actually decrease?”

The situation is similar in the UK, where KPMG and EY started demoting equity partners to salaried positions. “Getting to partner at a Big Four firm used to mean a job for life,” Blake noted. Now that security is disappearing.

PwC faces different troubles. They’re paying a $166 million fine related to their audit of the China Evergrande Group, the collapsed property developer accused of inflating revenue by $82 billion. PwC audited them for over ten years before resigning in January 2023. As David observed, they probably made far more than $166 million from the engagement.

PwC is also ending its fully remote option for US tax staff, requiring three days in the office starting July 2026. Going Concern speculates this might be a way to thin headcount without announcing layoffs. Remote workers either need to relocate or quit.

The NASBA Controversy: A Debate Over CPE Standards

One of the episode’s most heated discussions centered on a demand letter Blake received from NASBA regarding comments he made at an AICPA conference. While demonstrating how to use AI to create CPE courses, Blake suggested the traditional approach of creating learning objectives first, then content, was “backward.” He argued it made more sense to let experts teach, then create the objectives based on what they teach.

NASBA’s letter accused him of making “unfavorable, unprofessional, or inappropriate comments” and demanded he cease such remarks immediately.

“If there’s any place for a discussion about NASBA policies, it should be at a conference with 200 L&D people from all the big accounting firms,” David argued. The hosts expressed frustration that NASBA treats different pedagogical approaches as inappropriate rather than worthy of professional debate.

“The pendulum has swung too far towards regulation and too far away from learning,” David said, noting how CPE often becomes just checking boxes rather than actual education. Blake shared a copy of his response to NASBA on his blog. In it, he asks NASBA to explain why expressing a different educational philosophy constitutes unprofessional behavior.

Where the Shortage Hits Hardest

A new index from Sam’s List reveals which states face the worst accountant shortages. Nevada tops the list with just 1.75 accountants per 1,000 residents and 139 professionally prepared returns per accountant, the highest ratio in the study. Nevada’s accounting workforce also fell nearly 30% from 2019 to 2024.

“Sounds like it’s a state accountants don’t want to live in,” David observed. “Accountants probably don’t want that Vegas gambling lifestyle energy.”

While Nevada has the worst per-capita shortage, Texas needs almost 25,000 additional accountants. This puzzled the hosts, given Texas’s population boom from high-tax states. “Are the benefits just not that good, and accountants see through it?” David wondered.

On the flip side, Washington, D.C. has nearly 14 accountants per 1,000 residents, almost ten times Nevada’s rate. New York has a surplus of 27,000 accountants above the national baseline.

Looking Ahead

The picture emerging from these shows AI is transforming accounting but not replacing accountants. The 79% accuracy ceiling, the pivot of tech-first firms, and the Big Four’s struggles all point to the need to find the right collaboration between humans and AI.

For firm leaders, the franchise and partnership models emerging from companies like Decimal and Pilot may offer a more sustainable path than pure automation. For individual practitioners, the message is encouraging. While AI raises the floor on routine tasks, human judgment, experience, and adaptability remain irreplaceable.

Listen to the full episode of The Accounting Podcast for the complete discussion, including more details on the NASBA controversy, state shortage data, and whether Kentucky’s elimination of the 150-hour rule signals the beginning of the end for that requirement nationwide.

The Accounting Profession’s Favorite Performance Metrics Are Now Dangerously Misleading

· ·

PwC Australia cut partners by 35% and staff by nearly 40% since 2023, yet partner income went up 6%. Meanwhile, the IRS says it just had its “most successful filing season in history” with 25% fewer employees. Fewer people are doing more work than ever. But the accounting profession’s core systems for measuring performance, deciding who to hire, and tracking technology investments were built for a different world.

In a recent episode of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary talk about a profession transforming from the inside out. From IRS staffing cuts and Big Four workforce reductions to outdated metrics and licensing bottlenecks, we’re seeing technology race ahead while the infrastructure lags.

Tax Season Success Story (with a Catch)

IRS CEO Frank Bisignano told the Senate Finance Committee that the 2025 filing season was remarkably successful despite the agency losing about a quarter of its staff. The IRS received more than 134 million individual returns, 98% of which were filed electronically. Over 90% of filers got refunds in under 21 days, and the average refund jumped 11% to over $3,400.

The agency credited technology upgrades and AI for the performance boost. Using AI and data analytics to identify underreporting, the IRS sent 500,000 letters that prompted corrections, generating $250 million in additional collections. Enforcement revenue was up 12%, and amended return processing improved from six weeks to just three days. Five noncompliance cases alone brought in $2 billion.

“Just five cases and $2 billion,” Blake noted. “That shows there are some real whales out there when it comes to not paying your taxes.”

But David pointed out an interesting wrinkle. There’s still no confirmed IRS commissioner. Bisignano is serving as CEO without congressional approval, yet Congress seems to have accepted this arrangement with little pushback.

Managing by an Outdated Scorecard

For decades, accounting firms have relied on metrics known as LUMBAR: Leverage, Utilization, Margin, Billing rate, and Realization. These metrics made sense when firms billed by the hour and success meant maximizing billable hours. But as AI compresses work time and firms shift to fixed fees and advisory services, these metrics become misleading.

Douglas Slaybaugh argued in Accounting Today that firms need to track different categories entirely. Instead of hours and billing rates, he suggests measuring:

  • Value creation, like advisory revenue as a share of total revenue
  • Automation rates
  • Redefined leverage, like revenue per employee rather than staff-to-partner ratios
  • Organizational health, including “regrettable turnover,” or losing people you wanted to keep
  • Client relationships

Blake was blunt about why traditional metrics fail. “If you go over or under on a job based on a job profitability calculation, which is based on hours, it doesn’t actually change anything in the firm because your staff costs are fixed.” When staff are salaried and clients pay fixed fees, being “over budget” on hours is meaningless. “We get so in the weeds,” he added. “We lose the forest for the trees.”

David pushed further, comparing it to Apple before Steve Jobs returned. The company had separate profit-and-loss statements for every product, optimizing each individually while missing the bigger picture. Jobs collapsed it all into one P&L, recognizing Apple as an ecosystem. “Why do you need all these metrics?” David asked. “Focus on the big picture of your firm.”

The shift is already happening at big firms. Client accounting services is the top growth driver for Top 100 firms for the third straight year, with 85% of firms reporting CAS growth. These services now include cash flow forecasting, budgeting, and strategic finance. That work doesn’t fit hourly billing models, yet many firms still try to manage these engagements with traditional utilization targets.

Licensing Rules as a Talent Bottleneck

Current CPA licensing creates what Jack Castonguay of Hofstra University calls a one-way street: firms can hire accountants and train them in AI, but they can’t easily bring in AI experts and train them in accounting.

“The US licensure model almost forces us to start with accountants and teach them AI skills,” Jack wrote in Bloomberg Tax. “It’s good to have accountants who are well versed in AI, but it would be better to also have AI experts trained in accounting. We should create space for both.”

Jack delivered a sharp observation about recent reforms. “We took away the 150-hour moat around the profession, but ultimately built a wall higher for non-accounting majors seeking to become CPAs.”

Blake agreed strongly. “If you can learn accounting theory on your own and pass the CPA exam, why do we require you to go take all these courses? The CPA exam is supposed to test the knowledge. And if you got the knowledge in another way, why do we care?”

The problem plays out in real life. A viewer shared that, despite having a business degree with an accounting minor, Arizona’s requirements and the need for CPA sign-offs create additional barriers for those with non-traditional backgrounds, such as military service.

There’s some progress. Maryland and Nevada joined roughly 30 states adopting alternative CPA pathways that require a bachelor’s degree, two years of experience, and passing the exam, without the 150-hour rule. But David expressed frustration. “We just got past the 150-hour rule, and we’re going to be on this debate and treadmill now for the next five years.”

Meanwhile, big firms aren’t waiting. Beyond PwC Australia’s dramatic cuts, Deloitte US slashed benefits for non-client-facing staff, halving parental leave from 16 to 8 weeks, cutting PTO by five days, and eliminating the $50,000 adoption and surrogacy benefit.

“What if this is just a way to get people to quit so you don’t have to lay them off from AI later on?” David wondered. The timing makes sense. While 51% of workers said they’d quit over return-to-office mandates in 2025, that number has crashed to just 7% in 2026. Workers are scared, and employers know it.

Betting on AI Without Measuring Results

A Thomson Reuters survey of 1,500 professional services respondents across 27 countries revealed only 18% track AI’s return on investment. Forty-two percent don’t measure at all, and 40% aren’t sure whether they do.

“Pretty much 80% aren’t tracking the return on their AI spend,” David said.

Those who do measure focus on the wrong things. Seventy-seven percent track cost savings, 64% track employee usage, but only 26% track client satisfaction, 23% track revenue growth, and just 17% track new business generation.

“They’re not tracking the correct metrics in their firms,” David noted. “This is not an accounting firm problem. This is professional services.”

The risks of poor AI implementation are real. Deloitte faces investigation in Newfoundland and Labrador after a resident discovered its $1.6 million healthcare report contained AI-generated fake citations. This is at least the third Big Four AI incident.

“They’re selling AI consulting services,” David said, “and then they prove they can’t do it themselves.”

The measurement problem extends beyond AI. Annual recurring revenue (ARR), the metric driving virtually every subscription company’s valuation, has no GAAP definition or standardized calculation. Companies define it however they want. A startup CEO recently made headlines for simply making up ARR numbers.

“If I were in charge of accounting standards, SaaS metrics is the first project I would have FASB do,” Blake said. “It’d be the best thing we could do for tech companies.”

The Path Forward

The accounting profession faces a challenge. The technology works, but the supporting infrastructure hasn’t caught up. Firms still manage by metrics that don’t reflect value creation. Licensing rules block the tech talent firms desperately need. And most organizations aren’t even measuring whether their AI investments pay off.

PwC Australia’s CEO, Kevin Burrowes, put it bluntly: “The future is fewer people doing the same amount or fewer people doing more.” Firms that don’t rebuild their internal systems to match this reality risk falling behind in a rapidly transforming profession.

For the full conversation, including discussions about Representative Ilhan Omar’s accounting disclosure error and more details on all these developments, listen to the complete episode.

Why Your Team Resists Change and the Simple Framework That Fixes It

· ·

A client builds an AI-powered dashboard, gets his CPA to validate it, then turns around and asks, “So what value do you bring that I can’t get from this thing?” The CPA doesn’t have a great answer. Services get scaled back.

Meanwhile, an oral surgery practice with four doctors and $8 million in annual revenue is still running QuickBooks Desktop, booking revenue through monthly adjusting journal entries, and entering its entire American Express bill as a single payment each month. They haven’t updated a single process since they founded the business decades ago. Both of these clients exist right now, and they could both be sitting in your pipeline this week.

That’s the change landscape accounting firm leaders navigate today. And if you think the biggest threat is AI or the private equity money flooding into the profession, Marcus and Rachel Dillon say you’re looking at the wrong problem.

In this episode of Who’s Really the BOSS?, the Dillons, owners of Dillon Business Advisors, make the case that the real risk isn’t the change itself. It’s how you lead your people through it. Drawing on real client stories, their own leadership missteps, and a framework borrowed from Patrick Lencioni, they lay out a practical approach to change management any firm leader can start using immediately.

 

The Change Landscape: From Silicon Valley to Main Street

Before you can bring your team through change, you need to understand what you’re actually up against. The answer depends on where you’re standing.

Marcus spends time networking with partners at top-20 and top-100 firms with $60 million or more in revenue. What he hears from those conversations tends toward doomsday. These firms serve private equity-backed businesses whose principals all have finance or business backgrounds. Those clients are leaning hard into AI, meaning the professionals serving them have to keep pace or move faster.

One leader at a larger firm told Marcus he no longer opens conversations with “How are the kids?” Instead, the first question he asks clients, prospects, and peers is, “How are you using AI today?”

“If your clients are changing faster than you are,” Marcus explains, “you’re going to be the weakest link in that relationship, and they’re going to move on faster than you can.”

The Big Four are already placing their bets. PwC is doubling down on technology and AI at the entry level, slashing recruiting and campus visits. If that layer of the workforce shrinks, they don’t need to wine and dine as many college students. EY is taking a different approach, doubling its CPA exam pass bonus to $10,000 and investing in the human side.

But while Silicon Valley types are sounding the alarm, Main Street tells a different story.

Remember that oral surgery practice? The lead doctor told Marcus they set up the business nearly 30 years ago and never updated their processes because the same team has been in place the whole time.

DBA’s plan for this client is to set up QuickBooks Online, enable bank feeds, connect them to a service like Ramp, and automate the revenue journal entry. Low-hanging fruit by any modern standard.

“You have to choose how analog you want to exist in this digital world,” Marcus says. The clients who want a human touch continue to pay a premium for it. A purely digital product, he argues, is a race to the bottom.

When Change Communication Goes Wrong

Marcus doesn’t sugarcoat DBA’s early track record on change communication. When the firm merged in another practice nearly a decade ago, Marcus was so excited about the acquisition that he gathered everyone in the conference room and essentially announced it cold. Most team members were hearing about it for the first time.

“That probably didn’t go over as well as I could have hoped,” he admits.

The fallout from moments like this is bad. People disengage. The service atmosphere turns mediocre. Tension builds. Marcus found himself labeled “addicted to change,” which bred resistance rather than readiness.

“If you don’t work on your culture, you still have a culture,” he says. “It’s just unintentional. The same can be said of change.”

Rachel offers the perspective from the other side. When she talks to team members about why they push back on change, the answer is almost always a lack of clarity. They don’t understand why it’s important. They can’t see how it impacts them personally.

“A lot of times it feels like, ‘This is going to take me longer and I’m going to have to work more. And I don’t have any more hours or capacity left to give,'” Rachel explains.

The Dillons evolved toward a three-question framework:

  1. What is changing?
  2. What is staying the same?
  3. How does this impact me?

It was an improvement, but still incomplete. It only addressed the team’s perspective, not clients or other stakeholders.

A peer group introduced Marcus to Patrick Lencioni’s Four Ps framework. The Dillons adopted it as their change-management filter and introduced it to the team at their recent Gather event alongside their rally cry for 2026: “Lead change, create impact.”

The Four Ps: Your Repeatable Framework for Leading Change

The framework gives firm leaders four sequential steps to follow every time they introduce change, whether it’s a new tech stack, a team restructuring, or a client exit strategy.

Purpose: What are we changing?

You need to anchor every change in something bigger than “we found a cool new tool.” At DBA, that anchor is their mission, vision, and values. Their core values spell out the word IMPACT, and Rachel describes how they literally map each proposed change back to specific letters in that acronym.

The trap most leaders fall into here is vagueness. Marcus admits he’s guilty of softening language because he wants to be liked and avoiding directness to dodge conflict.

“Just tell me what you expect. Just tell me what you need me to do,” Rachel says. “People don’t want 20 options. They want one or two.”

Marcus borrows from Andy Stanley: “To be clear is to be kind. To be unclear is to be unkind.”

“If you can’t clearly say what’s changing, the team will default to their comfort level,” Marcus warns. “Which means they’ll do as little as possible.”

Picture: What does success look like?

Leaders often skip this step. They explain what’s changing and how it will happen, but they never describe what winning looks like on the other side.

Marcus uses a family vacation analogy. You decide to take a trip (that’s the purpose). Now tell the kids you’re going to Disneyland and describe the destination so everyone can see it.

In a firm context, that might mean showing the team what life looks like after implementing a team-of-three service model: predictable capacity, no more overtime scrambles, better client satisfaction scores.

The Dillons deploy an exercise called Optimist/Pessimist. Pair people up. One person must articulate at least one or two positives about the proposed change. The other must find negatives. This gives explicit permission to voice concerns that would otherwise get whispered in private channels.

“Once we are sick of saying the same thing over and over again, they’ve actually received it, processed it, and can carry it out,” Rachel says. 

Plan: How do we get there?

The plan phase breaks the picture into executable steps. Extending the road trip metaphor, explain whether you’re flying or driving. If driving, are you taking the scenic route? Where do you pull over to celebrate progress?

Rachel emphasizes two non-negotiables for every step: a responsible person and a deadline. Each milestone needs an owner and a date, so there’s no ambiguity about who’s doing what by when.

This is also where you appoint change agents from within your team. Team members who showed energy during the Picture phase are natural candidates to lead portions of the execution.

“A simple plan executed beats a perfect plan that’s been delayed,” Marcus notes.

Part: What’s my role in this?

Every single person needs to understand their role, including those whose role is “nothing changes for you.”

Marcus shares a recent example from DBA’s acquisition work. For some team members, the message was, “Keep serving your current clients well. You’re not getting new clients from this acquisition. You’re not learning a new process or technology.”

Simply telling people “your job stays the same” is just as critical as the detailed instructions given to people at the center of the transition.

When you don’t tell people their part, they default to their worst experience. Maybe a previous boss promised “nothing will change” and then changed everything. You can’t control the baggage people carry, but you can replace old narratives with present-tense clarity.

This step requires a conversation, not an email. People need two-way dialogue where they can ask questions and process in real time.

Leading Through the Messy Middle

Marcus closes with an honest confession. “I’m as guilty as anybody. I want to initiate the change. And I want all the fruit from the success of that change. I don’t want to live through the change. I want to just speed through it or delegate it.”

Successful firms have leaders who bring their people through change intentionally, with clarity, conviction, and care.

The Four Ps give you a repeatable filter for any transition:

  • Purpose: Anchor the change in your mission and values and say it plainly
  • Picture: Show people what success looks like, then repeat until you’re sick of it
  • Plan: Break the vision into steps with owners and deadlines
  • Part: Tell everyone their role in a live conversation, not an email

Whether you’re navigating a firm acquisition, a technology overhaul, or wondering how fast AI is coming for your services, the same four questions apply. As the Dillons put it, the goal for 2026 is to lead change and create impact.

Listen to the full episode to hear Marcus’s take on how fast AI is really moving, Rachel’s breakdown of the Optimist/Pessimist exercise in action, and why moving homes during busy season might actually make perfect sense for a couple “addicted to change.”

Rachel and Marcus Dillon, CPA, own a Texas-based, remote client accounting and advisory services firm, Dillon Business Advisors, with a team of 15 professionals. Their latest organization, Collective by DBA, supports and guides accounting firm owners and leaders with firm resources, education, and operational strategy through community, groups, and one-on-one advisory.