Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Audit

The Week Accounting Lost Its Professional Status and Dating Apps Became Job Sites

· ·

After 128 years as licensed professionals, accountants just got told they’re not in the same league as doctors and lawyers—at least according to the Department of Education. In this episode of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary dig into what this means for the profession, along with news about AI taking over audits, big firms making embarrassing mistakes, and job seekers using dating apps to find work.

The Professional Status Problem

The Department of Education wants to strip accounting of its professional degree status, which would slash federal loan limits from $50,000 to $20,500 per year starting in 2026. This hits graduate accounting programs hard, especially when states are already rethinking the 150-hour CPA requirement.

The proposal came from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but as David points out, Congress didn’t actually specify which professions should qualify. “Isn’t Trump supposed to get rid of the deep state where these government agencies just make up the rules?” David asks. Instead, bureaucrats decided that medicine, dentistry, and law are professional programs, but accounting, nursing, architecture, and education aren’t.

AICPA President and CEO Mark Koziel calls this lack of recognition “common sense” to oppose, while NASBA President Daniel Dustin reminds everyone that CPAs have been licensed professionals since 1896—longer than many professions that made the cut.

During the livestream, one viewer made an interesting point: “If we are no longer professionals, that means we are entitled to overtime.” Blake expanded on this, noting that the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts professionals from overtime. Without that professional designation, Big Four firms might suddenly face huge labor costs for all those 50-60 hour weeks their CPAs work.

Students already questioning whether becoming a CPA is worth it will think twice when federal loan support drops by more than half.

AI Is Coming Fast, But Not Always Successfully

While regulators debate whether accountants are professionals, tech companies are betting billions on replacing them with AI. PwC announced it will have “full end-to-end AI automation for audits by 2026.” That’s not some far-off dream; they’re already using tools that auto-populate audit planning documents and analyze walkthroughs.

But the AI revolution has had some embarrassing failures. Deloitte produced a $1.6 million healthcare report for the Canadian government that included completely made-up academic citations. One fake paper was titled “The Cost Effectiveness of Local Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Health Workers in Canada,” which doesn’t exist. This came after a similar mess in Australia with over 20 fake citations.

“Deloitte’s website markets its AI and data teams,” David notes. “Deloitte should hire that team before they do any more AI work with clients.” The irony is that Deloitte sells itself as the company that helps others avoid exactly these AI mistakes.

Meanwhile, EY’s new leader Dante D’Egidio got promoted after cutting their audit deficiency rate from 46% to 9%. How? They fired clients, built support teams, and invested in technology. As Blake explains, “EY had too many clients and their staff and managers and partners were overworked. Quality went down.”

The OpenAI connection to accounting firms gets even stranger. OpenAI is investing in Thrive Capital, which owns Crete Professionals Alliance, a company that buys accounting firms and forces them to use AI technology. OpenAI will even send teams to work inside these firms. “This would be like Intuit buying accounting firms and making them buy QuickBooks,” David says. “People would lose their minds if that happened.”

The Job Market Reality Check

The economic news isn’t great. Small businesses lost 120,000 jobs in November while large companies only added 39,000. Three in ten companies plan to lay people off during the holidays. Americans are planning to spend $73 less on holiday shopping this year.

But there’s useful advice for job seekers. According to data Blake shared, 54% of workers got their current job through personal connections, while only 13% succeeded through job boards. Yet 60% of job seekers don’t use their network at all, mainly due to lack of confidence.

Here’s where it gets interesting: one-third of dating app users are now swiping for jobs, not dates. And it works: 88% made professional connections and 37% got job offers. “LinkedIn is the red water,” David observes. “You can’t stand out there. But if you say on a dating site, ‘Hey, I’m looking for a job,’ there’s nobody competing for jobs there.”

What’s Actually Changing

Beyond the headlines, several big shifts are happening. Xero is raising prices on developers specifically to stop AI models from accessing data. They’re banning developers from using their API to train machine learning models, the same thing Intuit did with QuickBooks.

Speaking of Intuit, the company now shares small business data with The Trade Desk, one of the world’s largest advertising networks. This lets advertisers target small businesses using QuickBooks data. “Your small business client data is now being sold to third party advertising networks,” David warns.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) quietly disbanded after cutting 300,000 government positions. They haven’t posted anything new since early October, and David suspects “Republicans are cutting away some of this bad press stuff.”

Looking Ahead

The hosts make some predictions for the coming year. David expects a partnership between OpenAI and the AICPA or CPA Academy by 2026 because “there’s just too much money” in CPE and they’re going to go after some of it. He also shared advice for young people: make a podcast interviewing professionals in your desired field. “If you’re in high school and want to become a dentist, make a podcast where you interview dentists. Even if nobody listens to your podcast, when you’re all said and done, you’ll know 40 dentists. And when you finish school, you probably have a good chance of getting a job.”

The accounting profession faces real challenges, from regulatory dismissal to AI automation to economic headwinds. But as Blake and David demonstrate each week, staying informed and adapting creatively matters more than protecting old definitions of professionalism.

Want to hear the full discussion, including details about PCAOB changes, tariff impacts, and why accounting firms might have to start paying overtime? Listen to the complete episode of The Accounting Podcast. You can even earn free CPE through the Earmark app while you listen.

Stop Fighting the Same Audit Battles Year After Year

· ·

Those recurring review comments that keep popping up across your team? Sam Mansour, CPA, did the math and it should make every audit firm leader pay attention. When you multiply these small inefficiencies across your entire practice, they balloon into 1,000 hours of wasted time annually. That’s half a full-time position lost to preventable mistakes, year after year.

In this episode of Audit Smarter, hosts Sam and Abdullah Mansour explore how firms can transform their most frustrating pain points into powerful improvements. Rather than treating each mistake as an isolated problem, Sam shares a systematic approach that turns recurring challenges into opportunities for growth.

The Hidden Cost of Repeated Mistakes

Sam starts with a simple example: a staff member who keeps forgetting to include references from cash testing leads back to supporting check registers. It seems minor until you realize this same mistake is happening across multiple team members, multiple engagements, and multiple years.

“Without reflection, mistakes repeat,” Sam emphasizes. “Without capturing what we’ve learned, we’re almost guaranteed that they’re going to repeat themselves.”

The math becomes staggering when you look across an entire firm. Sam breaks it down. “Let’s say they’re 15-minute issues. If you multiply that by 1,000, now it’s starting to take a lot of time. Because it’s not just one person, but multiple people doing it across multiple engagements.” With an average person working 2,080 hours per year, those 1,000 hours of wasted time equal half a position.

What’s particularly frustrating is that these aren’t random, one-off errors. “Very rarely is it just this one person making this one mistake and you’re never going to see that mistake ever again from different team members,” Sam explains. “People tend to make similar mistakes.”

From Personal Notes to Firm-Wide Knowledge

Sam’s solution is simply to create a lessons-learned log. At the most basic level, this might be a Word document where a preparer titles a section “Cash” and documents specific review comments they receive.

“When you go and test that section again, you need to review your own work,” Sam explains. “You complete this testing in that cash section. Next, you need to realize, okay, I commonly forget to make the reference back from what I see in this lead schedule.”

But personal documentation is just the beginning. Abdullah suggests using OneNote for better organization. “OneNote helps organize it so that you can have one folder for one client,” he explains. “And then you can have several different pages essentially underneath that. So just organizes it a lot better. It’s like a file structure on a network.”

The real power comes when firms turn these individual insights into searchable, firm-wide resources. Sam shares his own recurring challenge with farm audits. “Every year I get into those work papers, I’ll be like, oh shoot, how did those journal entries work? What was that again? Because I only tested like one or two of these a year.”

The solution is to create what Sam calls “a trail of breadcrumbs,” detailed guidance that lives outside the formal audit documentation. This might include written instructions, screenshots of calculations, or even “record video of yourself talking about it.”

By organizing these resources into categories like planning, fieldwork, and wrap-up, firms create an institutional memory that helps everyone, but especially new team members who can access years of accumulated wisdom before their first engagement.

Post-Engagement Debriefs Can’t Be Optional

Sam acknowledges the common perception of post-engagement debriefs as just administrative work. Teams finish one audit and want to jump straight into the next, treating reflection as a luxury they can’t afford.

But Sam insists these debriefs are critical. Structure these meetings by asking three essential questions: What worked? What didn’t work? Where did we get stuck?

Timing matters enormously. “If you wait six months to ask what worked and what didn’t work during busy season, it’s difficult to recall all those little instances,” Sam explains.

The solution is to make debriefs mandatory. “Don’t make it an optional thing,” Sam insists. “We need to sit down, discuss, and reflect.”

These insights then translate into concrete improvements. Sam provides specific examples of how to use what you learn:

  • Update templates. Add conditional formatting that turns cells green when correct values are entered, creating visual confirmation that eliminates data entry errors.
  • Improve checklists. Sam says people like to complain about adding more things to the checklist. His response is practical: “We should continue to add things to the checklist until we stop missing them.”
  • Document compensating controls. In smaller environments where proper segregation of duties isn’t possible, teams often miss compensating controls. Sam’s solution is to put a header in the template that says Compensating Controls. Highlight that section in yellow, and force auditors to fill it out when they’re in the field.

Getting Your Team to Actually Buy In

“They’re filling out more paperwork. Their checklists are becoming longer, their templates are becoming longer. They’re asked to do more work. People get frustrated,” Sam says, acknowledging the pushback firms encounter.

The key to overcoming resistance is to explain the “why” behind every change. Using the compensating controls example, Sam shows how to frame it. Explain why smaller clients need these controls, how missing this documentation puts the firm at risk, and why this has emerged as a firm-wide trend.

Most importantly, show the math. “Yes, it takes an extra 15 minutes to fill out this work paper,” Sam quantifies, “but on the back end it costs us, on average, an hour. So we’re saving 45 minutes and we’ve improved our audit quality.”

Recognition matters too. “Recognize people who help us improve as a firm,” Sam emphasizes. When you publicly acknowledge team members who contribute ideas, it shows everyone that the firm values continuous improvement.

The payoff is clear when teams understand the bigger picture. “Improvement is easier to embrace when it’s linked to wins, not just extra tasks,” Sam explains. The wins include reduced hours, better documentation, less stress during peer reviews, and becoming better auditors overall.

Building a Culture Where Every Audit Makes You Stronger

The ultimate transformation happens when learning becomes part of your firm’s DNA. “We do work and then we reflect on that. What did we do good? What did we do bad? What needs to improve? What needs to change?” Sam describes. “We take those lessons learned and then we implement change in the firm. Now it’s an upgrade.”

This creates a powerful shift in how teams approach their work. “Eventually it becomes so ingrained in people that they go out into the field with that mentality from the very beginning,” Sam observes. “If you know you’re going to have that conversation, the next audit you go out on, you don’t want come to the next meeting and say, oh shoot, we missed this.”

The benefits extend beyond efficiency. Sam notes that when professionals evaluate career moves, they ask themselves if working at a firm will enhance their resume. “It’s really important to have a culture of learning, to have a culture of enhancing and moving forward,” he emphasizes.

Perhaps most remarkably, this approach transforms the audit environment itself. “I have found audit environments like that are much less stressful to be in because everyone’s just so ahead of the game and so proactive,” Sam reflects.

Some might think this vision sounds unrealistic, but Sam addresses this directly. “For a lot of audit firms listening to this, they’re thinking this is an unrealistic dream. But it’s very realistic if the people in the firm buy into this idea.”

Over time, Sam promises, “your audit methodology becomes smarter, more efficient and more resilient because now you’re not just digging holes and going home. You’re you’re thinking it through.”

Turn Your Next Review Comment Into Progress

The difference between firms that fight the same battles year after year and those that continuously improve isn’t talent or resources. It’s the discipline to capture, analyze, and act on lessons learned.

Sam’s framework shows every review comment, debrief insight, and team suggestion can strengthen your entire firm. When you transform individual experiences into institutional knowledge, optional debriefs into mandatory investments, and isolated improvements into a learning culture, each audit makes your firm stronger.

Ready to stop losing productivity to preventable mistakes? Listen to the full episode for detailed frameworks and additional examples.

After 50 Years in Internal Audit, Richard Chambers Sees the Profession’s Greatest Risk Yet

· ·

“Who’s going to provide the skepticism, the intellectual curiosity, and the institutional knowledge to our audit teams in ten years? Because the rest of us are going to be gone.”

Richard Chambers drops this stark warning after 50 years in internal audit. His concern isn’t about losing jobs to technology. It’s about the growing gap between how we’ve always trained auditors and what the profession now demands.

On this episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Richard, Senior Advisor for Risk and Audit at AuditBoard. He brings a unique view of internal audit’s transformation. When he started in 1974, fresh out of college and working in a bank’s internal audit department, the job was all about checking financial records and looking backward. Today? Financial risks make up only 25% of audit plans. The rest involves cyber threats, AI governance, supply chain chaos, and what Richard calls “perma-crisis”—our new normal where tariff rates can change three times in a single day.

Most companies use AI, but only a quarter have set up proper governance over it, according to AuditBoard research. That gap presents massive risk and opportunity for internal auditors who can bridge it.

From Bean Counting to Risk Navigation

Internal audit has changed dramatically since Richard joined that bank in 1974. Back then, it was all ledgers and reconciliations—purely financial work focused on last year’s numbers. Today, financial risks are just a quarter of what internal auditors examine.

“The profession has matured,” Richard explains. “While we still do some work in the financial space, that’s really a small percentage of internal audit’s focus.”

The real game-changer has been what Richard calls “perma-crisis.” It started with the COVID-19 pandemic and hasn’t stopped. “We’ve been lurching from one risk-induced disruption to another,” he says, listing the cascade: pandemic, forty-year-high inflation, supply chain breakdowns, wars in Europe and the Middle East. “We’re in our sixth year of it, and I would submit this is the new normal.”

This constant chaos makes traditional planning almost useless. Richard found that nearly 60% of internal audit departments had already changed their 2025 plans by May. When tariff rates can swing wildly in a single day—Richard recalls hearing three different numbers from Washington in one day—annual planning is dangerous.

“You can no longer have any confidence that one scenario is the only one you have to worry about,” Richard emphasizes. Organizations need what he calls “scenario risk management,” or planning for multiple possible futures at once.

This need for flexibility shifts how internal audit works with other departments. The old model was called “three lines of defense”: management controlled risks (first line), oversight functions monitored them (second line), and internal audit was the last barrier before disaster (third line).

But pure defense isn’t enough anymore. In 2019, the Institute of Internal Auditors dropped “defense” from the name. The new message? “Independence does not mean isolation.”

Richard uses a ship analogy that really hits home. Organizations are like vessels at sea that need lookouts watching in all directions and talking to each other. “If your internal auditors are looking in one direction and your risk managers are looking in another,” he warns, “but they aren’t sharing what they’re seeing, then you don’t know whether there are gaps.”

AI: The Top Risk and Best Opportunity

Three years ago, AI wasn’t even on internal audit’s risk list. Today, it’s number one, pushing even the talent crisis to second place.

“Pre-2022, before ChatGPT came out, we weren’t asking about it,” Richard admits. Once he started surveying the profession, AI rocketed up the list: middle of the pack the first year, third place the next, then straight to number one.

This isn’t just another tech disruption. After watching five decades of change, Richard doesn’t mince words: “In the five decades I’ve been in internal audit, there’s never been a greater risk to this profession in terms of becoming irrelevant.”

The scariest part? When Richard asks why audit teams aren’t using AI more, the top answer is, “We don’t really understand it enough.” That hesitation could be fatal.

Yet Richard himself uses AI daily as his “research assistant.” He asks it to identify industry risks, outline articles, analyze data. “It takes me longer to write the prompts than it takes to give me the answer,” he notes.

The use cases are obvious and powerful. Risk assessments that used to happen annually can now be continuous. AI can scan for threats humans would never spot. Data analysis that took weeks happens in minutes. Even audit reports can be AI-generated.

But the trap is that AI excels at exactly the work that trains new auditors. Entry-level graduates traditionally learned by doing routine tasks. Now AI does those tasks better and faster.

“College graduates have traditionally been able to ease into professions by doing some of the more rudimentary tasks,” Richard explains. “But AI is prime for rudimentary tasks.”

This creates a vicious cycle. Companies hire fewer entry-level auditors. Without that pipeline, who develops the judgment for complex work? Richard’ solution: “We shouldn’t refrain from hiring them. We should be willing to bring them in and help them leap the learning curve.”

“AI won’t replace internal auditors,” Richard predicts, “but it will replace internal auditors who don’t use it.”

The Human Superpowers AI Can’t Touch

“To assess culture, you also have to be able to rely on your sense of smell.”

A chairman of the board of a large Indian company shared this wisdom with Richard years ago, and it perfectly captures what separates humans from AI. Technology can analyze documents and data. But it takes human instinct to sense what happens when nobody’s watching.

Richard identifies three “human superpowers” that AI cannot replicate: professional skepticism, intellectual curiosity, and relationship skills. These aren’t soft skills; they’re the core value of internal audit.

Take culture assessment. Richard has done two major research projects showing how toxic culture can destroy organizations. But judging culture requires reading between lines, sensing unspoken tensions, and understanding human motivations. As Blake pointed out during the conversation, “The body language, the way people talk to each other, all of that is context that AI just cannot have access to.”

The audit committee relationship shows this even more clearly. Richard chairs an audit committee and knows these relationships need more than data transfer. They require courage to “grab them by the face” and focus them on hidden risks.

“If we’re content to just answer the questions they ask,” Richard warns, “then we’re not really serving our organizations well. We have to help them understand the questions they need to be asking.”

This shift, from giving answers to finding the right questions, represents a huge evolution. While AI can list potential questions, there’s something fundamentally human about knowing which questions matter.

Most critically, Richard identifies one role that must stay human: assessing AI’s own governance. “I shudder to think that there may be a day where we ask AI to assess its own governance,” he says. “We would never do that with anyone else.”

The challenge is developing these human skills when the traditional path is disappearing. Without routine work to learn on, how do new auditors develop judgment?

We need to help new auditors develop skepticism, intellectual curiosity, and institutional knowledge from day one. Teach them to ask “why” before teaching them “how.”

As Richard reflects after 50 years, “What a difference from the bean counter view of internal audit. You get to be so curious as an internal auditor these days.”

The Next 50 Years Start Now

Richard’s journey from a bank to internal audit’s leading voice shows a profession that has transformed before and must do so again.

The collision of perma-crisis and AI doesn’t doom internal audit. It clarifies its purpose. When tariffs change three times daily, cyber threats evolve by the hour, and AI makes decisions we don’t fully understand, organizations desperately need professionals who ask the hard questions.

Not “What does the data say?” but “What isn’t the data telling us?” Not “How do we implement AI?” but “How do we govern what we can’t fully understand?”

The saying “independence does not mean isolation” applies to both organizational relationships and the human-AI partnership. Tomorrow’s successful auditors won’t resist AI or surrender to it. They’ll orchestrate a sophisticated dance between computational power and human intuition.

The fact that entry-level work is vanishing while judgment becomes more critical demands new thinking about professional development. Organizations can’t wait for fully-formed auditors. They must cultivate intellectual curiosity from day one.

For accounting and tax professionals watching internal audit’s future, Richard warns those who avoid or fear AI will become irrelevant. But he also extends an invitation: those who combine technology with human capabilities will find themselves at the center of organizational decision-making.

Listen to the complete conversation to understand why this moment represents internal audit’s greatest challenge and its most exciting opportunity. After five decades in the profession, Richard reminds us the question isn’t whether internal audit will survive the age of AI. It’s whether individual auditors will choose to evolve with it.

Why Most Accounting AI Will Hit an Auditability Wall

· ·

Every day, another AI agent promises to revolutionize accounting. But there’s a fundamental problem most tech companies don’t understand: AI accounting will hit what FloQast CEO Mike Whitmire calls “the auditability wall.”

While Silicon Valley churns out press releases about AI agents that can handle complex accounting tasks, a reality check awaits. In this episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sits down with Mike Whitmire, founder and CEO of FloQast, to explore why accounting AI is fundamentally different from AI in other business functions. Rather than getting swept up in the AI marketing frenzy, FloQast stepped back to solve the core problem: how to harness AI’s power while maintaining complete audit trails and human oversight.

As Whitmire warns, “A series of companies will come out with AI agents that can do a lot of this work fairly accurately. Then they hit this auditability wall, and it creates a big problem for companies trying to scale.”

The Auditability Problem That’s Breaking Accounting AI

Unlike other business functions where AI mistakes can be shrugged off, accounting operates under rules most tech companies don’t understand. When a sales AI messes up a lead, the stakes are minimal. But in accounting, every transaction must be traceable, every decision documented, and every process capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny.

This creates a fundamental conflict between how most AI systems work and what accounting requires. “AI is really about automating work, and agents are doing non-deterministic work,” Whitmire explains. “So that becomes a little scary when you’re thinking about auditability.” Most AI systems function as “black boxes.” They can produce results, but they can’t explain their decision-making process in the detailed, step-by-step manner that auditors and regulators demand.

The problem is about to hit the industry hard. When AI systems can’t provide proper documentation and audit trails, auditors are forced to recreate all the work, defeating the entire purpose of automation.

Rather than getting swept up in the AI marketing that dominates press releases from major ERP vendors, FloQast took a different approach. “We tried to avoid the noise and think about how AI should be applied to accounting,” Whitmire says. They started with their experience as former auditors and accountants, asking: How do you combine AI automation with traditional software code and human oversight to create something that actually works?

The answer required rethinking the entire approach to accounting AI, leading to a solution that preserves audit trails and human oversight while still delivering efficiency gains.

FloQast Transform: Building AI Auditors Can Actually Trust

Rather than chase the latest AI trends, FloQast built something different: an AI system that auditors can actually work with. The FloQast Transform product harnesses AI’s power while maintaining the audit trails financial reporting demands.

The approach is simple: let accountants describe their processes in plain English, then use that narrative to generate automated scripts and complete audit documentation. “You build your agents,” Whitmire explains. “You chat with the product and explain your process in pretty extreme detail.”

As accountants describe their workflow step by step, the system populates what looks like a familiar Excel workbook. “This Excel workbook will ultimately be the audit evidence,” Whitmire notes. This isn’t just a user interface choice. It’s a deliberate design decision to ensure every AI-driven process produces the documentation auditors expect to see.

Take FloQast’s benefit allocation journal entry example. The process starts with integrating with UKG Payroll to pull down employee data. The accountant describes each step: “integrate with UKG,” then “pull down information around names, dollar amounts, state,” then “populate column A with this, populate column B with this, and bold and make the header gray because that’s the format I like.”

The system combines different types of automation. For routine tasks, it generates deterministic code that produces consistent results every time. But when the AI encounters something new, like when FloQast hired its first Kentucky employee, it doesn’t guess. Instead, “it surfaces the question to the reviewer of that work,” Whitmire explains. The accountant can approve the change, and going forward, Kentucky will be handled properly.

This approach changes the accountant’s role. Instead of being the preparer who manually processes transactions, they become the reviewer who oversees AI agents and approves exceptions. “Our goal is to empower accountants to automate the really repetitive, rote part of this job. Elevate them into the reviewer of the more complicated work that the agent’s now doing,” Whitmire says.

The system preserves every prompt sent to the AI, every output generated, and every decision made. When auditors come knocking, they can trace exactly how each transaction was processed and where humans intervened. It’s the kind of comprehensive audit trail that makes regulatory compliance possible while still delivering efficiency gains.

Beyond transaction processing, FloQast applies AI to other areas like variance analysis. When account balances trigger materiality thresholds, the system analyzes the biggest transactions causing the change and drafts explanations. “It’s like balance went up because of boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,” Whitmire says. “It’s not these wonderful essays on how things change. It’s like a list of transactions.”

The Future of Accounting: Cyborgs, Not Replacements

The auditability challenge yields a surprising conclusion: rather than replacing accountants, AI will transform their role in ways that could solve the profession’s biggest problems. But this transformation requires rethinking what it means to be an accountant.

Whitmire envisions accountants becoming “accounting transformation information managers,” professionals who combine accounting knowledge with software engineering capabilities. “It will be much more like the merging of an accountant with a software engineer,” he explains. “So you have the accounting knowledge, supplemented by software engineering tools like FloQast, where they can take their accounting knowledge, use our product, and automate their work.”

This isn’t just about learning new software. It’s about fundamentally changing the structure of accounting work. Instead of spending hours manually processing transactions, accountants would deploy AI agents to handle routine work so they can focus on reviewing exceptions, making judgment calls, and ensuring compliance.

The career implications depend on where you are professionally. For younger professionals, Whitmire recommends “Get really good at technology, learn these tools as they come out, and continue to learn about accounting. You’re going to be a very, very valuable employee going forward.” For experienced professionals, “You need to be really great at reviewing the work. Continue to be really great leaders, and run great organizations.”

This evolution could address the profession’s talent shortage. By making accountants more productive and the work more intellectually engaging, AI could help attract and retain talent. “My hope is that it does a really good job of plugging the talent gap we talk about so much,” Whitmire notes.

But there’s a learning concern. Whitmire worries about newer professionals who might skip foundational manual work and jump straight to reviewing AI-generated results. “I feel like the old man saying this, but I did learn a lot doing the work manually and struggling through it,” he admits. He recalls learning about jet lease accounting by struggling through contracts and GAAP guidance—work that an AI could now handle instantly.

The solution may require restructuring how accountants learn their craft. Perhaps starting in accounting roles where they do manual work before moving into audit, rather than the current model, where most start as auditors reviewing work they’ve never performed.

As Oliver puts it, “I would rather manage AIs than manage people.” It reflects both the appeal and reality of this AI-augmented future. Managing AI agents eliminates many interpersonal challenges while allowing professionals to focus on technical and analytical work.

The accounting profession is heading toward becoming a hybrid of human judgment and AI automation. The question is whether professionals and firms will adapt quickly enough to thrive.

Regulatory Changes on the Horizon

The discussion also touched on significant regulatory changes that could reshape the profession. There are efforts in Congress to eliminate the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and transfer its responsibilities back to the SEC without additional funding, effectively ending independent audit oversight.

“When I was at EY, we were always scared of a PCAOB audit. So it was a thing that drove behavior,” Whitmire reflects. The fear-based incentive improved audit quality, even if the overall effectiveness is debatable.

Without the PCAOB, the industry would likely return to peer review, where accounting firms review each other’s work. As Oliver notes, “You’re not so afraid of your buddies reviewing your work.” That’s the same dynamic that led to audit failures before the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

This regulatory uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to the AI transformation. Firms implementing AI systems need to consider current audit requirements and how oversight might change in the coming years.

The Path Forward: Auditability as Competitive Advantage

The accounting profession’s rigid requirement for auditability is often seen as a weakness. But it may become its greatest competitive advantage in the AI revolution. While tech companies rush to market with AI agents that promise to automate everything, firms that understand and embrace the auditability challenge will build sustainable, scalable solutions.

FloQast Transform demonstrates that the future isn’t about choosing between human judgment and AI automation. It’s about creating systems where they work together seamlessly. By preserving audit trails, maintaining human oversight for exceptions, and generating documentation that auditors can use, they’ve solved the fundamental problem that will likely sink many AI accounting startups.

For accounting professionals, this is a career evolution opportunity. The future belongs to those who combine accounting expertise with technology capabilities. These professionals will be empowered by AI to focus on higher-level analysis, judgment calls, and strategic work. The professionals who master these systems now will find themselves in increasingly valuable positions as the technology matures.

To hear the complete conversation about FloQast’s approach to accounting AI, including detailed technical examples and Whitmire’s predictions for the profession’s future, listen to the full episode above.

Why Your Audit Fails Before Fieldwork Even Starts

· ·

“Some audits are doomed before the fieldwork even begins.”

In Episode 2 of Audit Smarter, Sam Mansour cuts to the heart of a problem many audit professionals face but don’t fully understand. You’ve been there: an experienced team, solid procedures, and a reasonable budget. Yet somehow, the engagement still feels like constantly playing catch-up. Testing seems disconnected. Risks surface at the worst possible moment. Partners ask questions during review that should have been answered weeks ago.

The culprit? Poor risk assessment that undermines everything that follows.

Most audit professionals understand risk assessment is important, but few realize how dramatically it shapes their engagement. Mansour explains, “The risk assessment drives the entire audit approach. And if we misidentify or overlook specific audit risks, your testing could be misaligned, and you could waste time. But even more concerning, you might miss material misstatements.”

Here’s what’s happening across the profession and, more importantly, what you can do about it.

Why Risk Assessment Gets the Short End of the Stick

The problem isn’t that auditors don’t know how to assess risk. It’s that firms have systematically devalued this critical phase, treating it as administrative overhead rather than the strategic foundation it actually is.

“Many teams view planning just as a compliance step and not as a strategic one,” Mansour observes. Budget pressures and efficiency demands create an environment where teams feel pushed to rush through risk assessment. “We devalue the risk assessment phase. We think of it as a textbook thing. Let’s just check some boxes and move on.”

This leads to what Mansour calls “pencil whipping,” mechanically completing checklists without genuine thought or analysis. The evidence shows up everywhere in audit files: work paper references that don’t make sense, incorrect years, or references to people who no longer work at the organization.

“It’s pretty clear it’s been rolled forward,” Mansour notes. “And it’s also very clear no one read through it.”

When external reviewers, whether peer reviewers or regulators, see this kind of documentation, it immediately raises red flags. “As a peer reviewer, you look at some of these risk assessments, and it’s crystal clear they just rolled this from last year and they didn’t even look at it,” he explains. “You’re probably going to be pretty strict when you’re looking at the rest of that file because clearly these guys are just rolling from the prior year.”

The pressure to be “efficient” in planning creates a dangerous cycle where the foundation of the audit becomes weaker, making it much harder to execute proper testing throughout the engagement.

5 Common Mistakes That Derail Audits

Understanding where things typically go wrong helps you avoid these pitfalls in your own engagements. Mansour identifies several patterns that consistently create problems.

Generic, Template-Driven Approaches

When risk assessments are generic and not customized to the specific client, the walkthroughs and procedures that follow suffer. “If we are general or vague in our identification of risks, it results in generic audit procedures,” Mansour explains.

Copying Prior Year Without Thinking

Using prior-year documentation as a starting point makes sense, but many teams go too far. They simply copy everything over with minor adjustments, becoming “a little complacent, a little lazy” in the rollover process. A better approach is to use prior-year information as a guide but take a fresh perspective on the current year.

Failing to Link Risks to Procedures

One “gut-wrenching” moment in an audit review happens when the audit team identifies risks in checklists, but no corresponding procedures address them. “You identified this risk, but what did you do about it?” This mistake exposes fundamental gaps in audit logic.

Superficial Inquiries

Take related party transactions, for example. Many auditors accept a simple “we have none” from the client and move on. But as Mansour points out, “that’s not sufficient.” Instead, “auditors should dig into board minutes, vendor relationships, and ownership records” to understand whether related parties exist and what transactions might occur.

Misusing Junior Staff

Sending inexperienced team members to conduct walkthroughs without proper guidance is a recipe for problems. Junior staff might identify three issues out of ten while missing critical problems that experienced auditors would catch immediately. “Sometimes you need experience to tell you, you’re looking at ten different things and eight of them are going to be a problem and two of them are not,” Mansour explains.

The solution isn’t to avoid using junior staff. It’s to pair them with experienced team members who can provide real-time guidance and fill in the gaps.

Practical Tools to Strengthen Your Risk Assessment

The good news is that these problems are entirely fixable with the right approach and tools. Here’s what works:

  • Dynamic checklists. Move beyond simple checkbox exercises to checklists that challenge teams to collect new information and think deeply about what they find. Ask different types of questions that force auditors to go beyond surface-level inquiries.
  • Structured brainstorming sessions. Don’t just conduct one brainstorming session and call it done. Mansour recommends peppering collaborative discussions throughout the engagement. “Have the engagement team go out to lunch and consider that part of your brainstorming activity,” he suggests. These sessions force teams to share knowledge and often uncover overlooked areas.
  • Early data analytics. Instead of treating analytics as nice-to-have add-ons, deploy them “immediately after engagement acceptance,” Mansour advises. His approach: “Give me your trial balance, and I will do some data analytics on it right from the get-go.” This generates specific issues to investigate before client meetings, allowing you to connect numbers to client stories strategically.
  • Simple intelligence gathering. Something as basic as Googling your client’s name can reveal critical information, yet “a lot of auditors won’t even do that,” Mansour observes. “You’d be shocked at some of the stuff” these searches uncover. Review prior audit findings, look for industry changes, and stay current on client updates.
  • Collaborative team approach. Instead of having one person update risk assessment documentation alone, assign different sections to different team members. This ensures multiple people read through and think about the content, rather than having it all flow through one person who might miss important details.

What Separates Top Performers

Firms that consistently execute superior risk assessments share several key characteristics that set them apart.

They Treat Risk Assessment as a Mindset

“Top performers treat risk assessment as a mindset, not just a task,” Mansour explains. “They understand that there’s value in risk assessments. It’s not just a checkbox on their list.” Their teams are intellectually curious rather than robotic, but this requires giving people adequate time and breathing room to think deeply.

They Create Collaborative Environments

These firms don’t silo team members into individual sections. Instead, they “connect the dots between client goals, internal controls, and audit processes with purpose.” Team members actively consider how discoveries in one area impact testing in others, creating a comprehensive understanding that reduces risk while improving efficiency.

They Invest in Proper Mentorship

Rather than throwing junior staff into complex situations alone, top performers create systematic mentorship structures. They pair junior staff with experienced seniors who provide real-time guidance, immediate field discussions, and progressive responsibility increases.

They Focus on Custom Solutions

Elite performers avoid generic approaches entirely. They tailor audit plans to each client and engagement year. Their team members can explain their logic clearly without defaulting to “it’s what we were told” or “it’s what we did last year.”

Three Changes to Make Right Now

If your firm wants to improve immediately, Mansour recommends focusing on these three foundational changes:

  1. Slow down in the planning process and allow for deeper team discussions. Invest upfront time that prevents downstream scrambling and quality issues.
  2. Ensure walkthroughs include a formal evaluation of control effectiveness with documentation customized to the specific client and current year rather than generic templates.
  3. Critically assess each risk and match it to custom procedures designed to address it, eliminating the disconnect between identified risks and actual testing approaches.

How You Know You Got It Right

Success in risk assessment is measurable through specific indicators. Your audit plan should be tailored, not generic. This demonstrates genuine client-specific thinking rather than template dependency. Your team members should be able to explain their logic clearly and provide substantive reasoning for their approaches.

Most importantly, when partners or regulators review your documentation, they should be able to “read your risk assessment and understand the rationale,” as Mansour puts it. They should see a clear narrative and strategic thinking rather than dry, templated responses.

If your team can’t explain their logic, or if external reviewers see obvious evidence of rolling forward prior year templates, you’re still in checkbox mode rather than strategic thinking mode.

The Foundation Makes the Difference

Risk assessment isn’t preliminary work that happens before the “real” audit begins. It’s the foundation that determines whether your entire engagement succeeds or struggles. As Mansour explains using a gardening analogy, if the risk assessment seed “doesn’t get planted properly, if it’s not cared for properly, it sets you up for failure.”

Firms that recognize this and invest accordingly create sustainable competitive advantages through systematically superior approaches to this critical phase.

The strategies and tools we’ve covered are proven approaches to transform your risk assessment process from liability into a strategic advantage. However, implementation requires commitment to changing how your firm approaches and uses its resources for this foundational work.

Ready to dive deeper into these risk assessment strategies and discover the specific frameworks top performers use? Listen to the full episode of Audit Smarter for Sam Mansour’s complete insights on transforming your approach to risk assessment and elevating your audit practice.