• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Earmark CPE

Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

  • Home
  • App
    • Pricing
    • Web App
    • Download iOS
    • Download Android
    • Release Notes
  • Webinars
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Authors
  • Sponsors
  • About
    • Press
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Blake Oliver

How Florida CPAs Beat Back a Bill That Would Have Erased Their Own Licensing Board

Earmark Team · July 20, 2026 ·

Shelly Weir stood in the rotunda of the Florida Capitol building. The House floor was on one side, the Senate floor on the other. The clock was ticking toward midnight on the final day of the legislative session. Shelly was physically pulling senators off the floor while CPAs across the state called and texted lawmakers. These were college roommates, siblings, fellow churchgoers, basically anyone with a personal connection to a senior member of the Senate.

Around her, realtors, engineers, and harbor pilots were lined up too, all fighting for their professional lives inside the same 550-page bill. “If there’s one lifeboat,” she recalls thinking, “I’m getting on it. Good luck to you people.”

That was the scene at the end of Florida’s legislative session, and it shows just how close the CPA license came to being dismantled.

On this episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sits down with Shelly, president and CEO of the Florida Institute of CPAs (FICPA), for her first live interview about a two-year battle most of the profession has never heard about. The legislation she and her team fought would have eliminated Florida’s Board of Accountancy, wiped out continuing education requirements, and paved the way to eliminate licensure education requirements.

FICPA beat it twice.

What’s remarkable is how they won. The strongest defense wasn’t digging in, or what Shelly calls “the agent of no.” It was showing up as the efficiency experts CPAs claim to be. By combining a hard-nosed commerce argument with a genuine willingness to modernize the profession’s outdated rules, FICPA turned an existential threat into an opportunity to reform accounting on its own terms.

The 550-Page Threat That Almost Changed Everything

To understand what FICPA faced, you need to know how Florida makes laws. The state legislature meets for just 60 days a year. As Shelly puts it, “for 60 days, it’s fast and furious. That’s when you get bills passed, or you don’t.”

The warning signs had been there for years. “Anytime you have a piece of legislation that is this significant, there are normally signals it’s coming,” Shelly explained. “There are chess pieces that get put onto the chess board.” She’d been talking to her board and national entities about the threat for years before the bill actually dropped.

When it finally arrived in early April 2025, about halfway through the legislative session, it was a 550-page “behemoth,” in Shelly’s words. Accountants weren’t alone in this fight. The bill included architects, engineers, veterinarians, realtors, and harbor pilots (which, Shelly notes, are “really important in Florida”). The bill bundled them together with a single goal of eliminating their regulatory boards.

For CPAs, that meant three devastating changes. First, the Board of Accountancy would be gone. Second, all continuing education requirements would disappear. Third, it would clear the path toward eliminating licensure education requirements. “Everything we’ve spent the last few years talking about relative to 120- and 150-hours would go away,” Shelly explained. Instead, licenses would be awarded based only on work experience or on passing an exam.

The bundling of professions frustrated Shelly. “Respectfully, hairdressers are not the same thing as a CPA or an engineer.”

FICPA saw two distinct dangers. The immediate threat was breaking Florida’s mobility infrastructure. That’s the system that lets CPAs work seamlessly across state lines. That would cause damage “on day one.” The long-term danger was even worse. The license would either be eliminated or become “so degraded that it carried very little value.”

Why Lawmakers Wanted to Kill Professional Licensing

Shelly’s insight is crucial for understanding how FICPA fought back. Deregulation, she stresses, is bipartisan.

In red-leaning Florida, it’s about free-market enterprise. Republicans believe licensure creates too many barriers, too much red tape, and too much government interference. They want consumers to have more freedom of choice. They want more people to move to Florida and find work easily. They want more businesses to relocate there.

In blue and purple states, Democrats frame it as an issue of access and equity. If barriers are too high, they limit opportunities for disadvantaged groups. But the common thread between the two parties is the workforce. Everyone wants more people working and more businesses thriving.

“If you can take your CPA hat off for a moment, which I know is hard to do, you can understand where they were coming from,” Shelly said. She even acknowledges that “not all deregulation is bad and scary and ugly. There are a lot of deregulation proposals that, frankly, our profession and our license would be highly supportive of. We don’t want to be a barrier to entry. We’re the champions of efficiency.”

This particular bill, however, was “the most extreme version the profession had seen.”

After surviving the 2025 session by the skin of their teeth, FICPA had only a couple of months before facing the same threat again in 2026. They had to beat it twice, back-to-back.

The Two-Pronged Strategy That Saved the License

The bill moved at lightning speed. “From the time the bill was introduced until it passed the House floor was 18 days,” Shelly recalled. “It flew through three different committees, went to the House floor for a vote, and then got sent over to the Senate.”

FICPA knew early that the Senate would be their battlefield.

The resources they marshaled were impressive. Nine registered lobbyists worked the FICPA account, which included four in-house staff members (including Shelly herself) and an external firm they’d partnered with for 25 years. Two public affairs firms shaped their message in political trade journals. Voter polling projects studied constituent opinions. Members wrote letters, made calls, and traveled to Tallahassee.

But the smartest tactic was personal. FICPA hunted through its membership to find CPAs with genuine relationships with legislators. “We found college roommates, sisters, people that went to church together, anything you can imagine,” Shelly said. Why? “Hearing from a lobbyist is very different than hearing from, say, your own CPA on this issue.”

With these resources deployed, FICPA ran two strategies simultaneously.

First came the commerce argument. Florida’s system of mobility and practice privileges creates open borders for CPA work across state lines. It puts choice in consumers’ hands, which is exactly what deregulation advocates claim to want. So FICPA flipped the script. Pass this bill, and you don’t reduce red tape; you create it. “Florida’s going to be at a disadvantage,” they told lawmakers. “That’s not what you want.”

The argument “landed really, really well” and came up repeatedly in committee hearings.

The second strategy separated FICPA from every other profession in the bill. Instead of just defending the status quo, they modernized their own rules before the fight even started. “We asked ourselves before the bill even dropped: where and how can we, as a license, be more efficient while still upholding the integrity of our license and protecting the public?”

They examined everything from reciprocity and mobility to the licensure processes and introduced their own legislation to streamline it all.

Take reciprocity as an example. Currently, a CPA from another state must complete about nine steps to get licensed in Florida, including having their college transcript reviewed for specific courses. Shelly asked, “If they have a license in good standing from a board of accountancy that has a regulatory board, do we need to look under the hood and go through all of these different steps?”

Cutting that red tape “only helps people get to work easier and faster and lowers barriers,” which is exactly what legislators wanted, achieved on the profession’s terms.

Playing Offense and Defense at the Same Time

Shelly has a perfect analogy for what FICPA had to do. In Top Gun: Maverick, the pilots play “dogfight football” by running offense and defense simultaneously and trying to score while blocking linebackers coming after them. “That is the definition of what we’ve been doing over the past 12 months,” she said.

The key was avoiding becoming “the agent of no.” As Shelly explained, “I never want a legislator to see us walk in the door and be like, ‘Oh my God, here come the CPAs again, they’re going to complain about X, Y and Z.'”

Instead, the profession leaned into its identity as efficiency experts.

The Pathways initiative became powerful proof. The bill’s supporters argued that students learn more on the job than in the classroom, so why require education at all? FICPA didn’t have to argue theoretically. The profession had already created a work-experience pathway to licensure. It was a nationwide modernization effort states had rallied behind together.

FICPA could tell senators: we agree there should be freedom of choice, and here’s a pathway that prioritizes work experience. “It’s not an or, it’s an and. Let’s work together.”

That framing “landed very, very well” because it met lawmakers’ goals while protecting the system of commerce and the license’s integrity.

What made the difference was posture. FICPA was “the only profession in this particular bill that had taken a moment to self-reflect and taken a moment to modernize.” They were the only ones offering both sides a win.

The Midnight Drama and What’s Coming Next

Despite all the strategy, the fight came down to that single agonizing day, and it was the toughest of Shelly’s career. In Florida, any bill not passed by midnight on the session’s 60th day automatically dies.

On the final day of the 2025 session, with the House having already passed the bill, FICPA was “hanging on for dear life to prevent it from passing in the Senate.”

Standing in the Capitol rotunda, Shelly orchestrated a desperate defense. “We were literally physically pulling senators off the floor and just doing everything we could. I had every single CPA that personally knew one of the senior members of the Senate calling and texting and just physically pulling them aside.”

She credits Senator Joe Gruters, who is himself a CPA, as a crucial ally in that final stretch. Shelly calls him “the staunchest advocate for the profession.” The outcome stayed uncertain until the very end. The session ran “all the way to midnight,” and FICPA didn’t know they were safe until late in the evening. Since we recorded, Gruters was elected chair of the Republican National Committee, and he leaves the Florida Senate in November.

But surviving twice doesn’t mean it’s over. “I do not think the issue of deregulation is going away. Absolutely not,” Shelly said.

Florida faces an election year with a new governor, speaker of the House, and Senate president coming. It’s “an all new deck of cards,” as Shelly puts it. She expects licensing reform task forces, reduction requirements, and especially the CPE issue to resurface in Florida and other states. Since we recorded, one of those cards turned over: Byron Donalds and David Jolly won their August 18 primaries and face off for governor on November 3.

The CPE fight shows exactly what’s at stake. Shelly’s concern wasn’t that lawmakers wanted to examine continuing education. It was that they went straight to elimination. “They weren’t talking about modernization. They wanted to get rid of it altogether.”

FICPA isn’t opposed to CPE reform. “I think there’s a lot that we can do to modernize it, to make sure that the purpose of it is to make a more competent CPA,” Shelly said. But she insists any change must happen collectively across states, just like Pathways, so it doesn’t break the system of commerce.

Whether the board-elimination proposal itself returns is harder to predict. Fresh lawmakers create what Shelly calls “an amazing opportunity” to find common ground before a bill ever gets filed. But she won’t count it out. “That idea has been planted, and it’s landed. There are a lot of people who are still interested in that.”

The Playbook Every State Society Needs

FICPA’s survival story offers lessons that reach far beyond Florida. When faced with a bill that treated a CPA license as no more important than a cosmetology certificate, the instinct to dig in and fight everything would have been understandable and probably fatal.

What actually worked was the opposite. By combining a commerce argument that addressed lawmakers’ concerns with genuine reform of reciprocity and licensure rules, FICPA found common ground while still protecting the public and the integrity of the license.

The profession wins by acting like the efficiency experts CPAs tell their clients they are.

Deregulation is bipartisan and gaining momentum nationwide. Every CPA, EA, and bookkeeper has a stake in whether the license keeps its value. State societies stand on the front lines when these bills drop.

As Shelly put it, “pressure is a privilege.” The profession’s willingness to be efficiency experts rather than agents of “no” may determine whether the license survives the next wave.

This is Shelly’s first and only live interview on a two-year battle that barely made the national press. To hear the full strategy, the midnight drama, and her warnings in her own words, listen to the complete episode on the Earmark Podcast.

The Big Four Keep Publishing Fake AI Citations and It’s Getting Embarrassing

Earmark Team · July 20, 2026 ·

A solo accountant can complete two years of bookkeeping in a few hours using Claude Cowork. But KPMG had to pull an entire AI report after 89% of its citations turned out to be fake. The AI revolution in professional services is already sorting winners from losers.

In episode 493 of The Accounting Podcast, hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary tackled a cluster of stories that paint a clear picture of how AI is restructuring professional services right now in real workflows, real paychecks, and real embarrassments for the Big Four.

There’s a growing divide between professionals who use AI carefully with human oversight (and get massive productivity gains) and those who rush to market themselves as AI experts while failing basic verification. This episode covers the Big Four’s repeated AI failures, the incredible productivity gains available to practitioners who use AI right, and the broader industry signals showing how AI is reshaping everything.

 

The Big Four’s “Vibe Citation” Problem Keeps Getting Worse

KPMG’s 2025 report, “Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI,” was supposed to showcase its AI expertise. Instead, it became the latest example of Big Four firms publishing AI-generated content they apparently never checked, also known as “vibe citations.”

GPTZero, a platform originally built to help teachers detect AI-generated text, analyzed KPMG’s report and found out of 45 citations, only five were accurate. Twenty-eight pointed to real sources but had made-up details. Twelve were too vague to verify. At least 16 were complete hallucinations. The tool rated the report 89% flawed.

The fake details weren’t subtle. KPMG claimed an Austrian utility called Verbund was using AI for real-time household energy optimization. In reality, the citation was about Verbund investing in a startup that might do this someday. They said Emirates airline had a chatbot named “Sara” that could change flights. Sara was actually a robot assistant from 2023 with no flight-change capability. The biggest gaffe was claiming East Japan Railway was using AI agents in 2019, before this type of AI even existed commercially.

UBS, NHS Greater Manchester, and Transport for London all said KPMG’s claims about their use of AI were “completely false or misleading.”

“We have to create a database and just track these because the Big Four just keeps doing it over and over again,” David said, noting similar recent incidents at EY and Deloitte.

The irony is KPMG’s website features an article titled “Essential Elements of Responsible AI: How Solid Guardrails Can Help You Scale AI Faster.” They’re selling AI expertise while failing at basic fact-checking.

David’s sarcastic take nailed it. “The only way I could think this could work is if the Big Four can go to the Fortune 500 and be like, ‘Look, we know all the mistakes that can be made. Now listen to us because we know what not to do.’”

How to Actually Use AI: A Real-World Success Story

While KPMG was publishing fantasy case studies, Blake was using AI to do real client work and showing what responsible AI use looks like.

He needed to complete two years of write-up work for a service business: 2,200 transactions across nine accounts, with source documents in a messy mix of PDFs and CSVs from different banks. In the old desktop days, this would have taken days of manual entry. Even with cloud accounting, it would take many hours of importing and coding.

Using Claude Cowork, he finished everything in about four hours, including gathering documents.

His approach was smart and deliberate. He pointed Claude at folders of bank statements and had it extract all transactions into Xero-compatible import files. It did OCR on PDFs, merged CSVs, and organized everything by account. Then he gave Claude the prior year’s general ledger and asked it to categorize transactions, but with a key addition: a confidence score for each categorization.

“I could open that up, sort by that score, and look at the transactions that are less than 90%,” Oliver explained. Instead of reviewing 2,200 items, he focused on exceptions.

The results were impressive. Claude missed just six transactions out of 2,200, and two of those were due to credit card statement date issues, not AI error. When a $5,000 clearing account discrepancy appeared, Claude opened Xero in a browser, analyzed the details, and identified the problems itself. One was a returned payroll miscoded to transfers. The other was more complex: undiscovered transfers to a business line of credit. Claude suggested this possibility, Oliver confirmed by pulling statements, and Claude then created the loan account, separated principal from interest, and fixed everything. That kind of discrepancy usually requires hours of investigation.

“I didn’t just say, ‘Here’s the GL detail, here are the transactions, go code them all and enter them into Xero,” Oliver emphasized. “I wanted to review it first, and I caught significant stuff.”

This capability is becoming more accessible. Microsoft’s Copilot Cowork is now available, with over half of Fortune 500 companies trying it during preview. Microsoft says it’s 30-40% cheaper per prompt than Claude, and since most accounting firms use Microsoft 365, it might already be on your computer.

Not everyone’s getting it right, though. David shared his frustration with QuickBooks AI. When he uploaded a PDF containing 12 monthly bills, QuickBooks mashed them into a single bill with line items from each invoice. No questions asked.

“It should say, ‘Hey, I noticed there are 25 bills in here. Do you want one bill or 25 separate bills?’ And I would just answer,” David said, comparing it to AI coding tools that ask before acting.

The Market Is Already Picking Winners and Losers

Meanwhile, CPA firms are seeing interesting pricing patterns. According to CPA Trendlines, overall pricing is up 4.2% year-over-year, reversing last year’s decline. But looking more closely at the breakdown, tax prep and planning jumped by nearly 8%. Advisory work rose over 6%. Audit only increased by 2.3%.

Clearly, clients will pay more for services requiring human expertise and judgment. Tax planning and advisory command the biggest premiums. More routine, standardized work, like audit, lags behind.

“Clients are willing to pay for tax planning advisory, for the human in the loop to make sure that the numbers are right,” Oliver said. “AI isn’t putting pressure on those fees at this point. And I don’t expect it to.”

The Real Divide: Verification vs. Vibes

The stories from this episode are different views of the same shift. KPMG publishes an AI report that’s 89% wrong while a solo practitioner uses AI to finish two years of work in an afternoon with near-perfect accuracy. CPA firms raise tax planning fees by 8% because clients value human judgment.

AI compresses the value of routine, unverified work while amplifying the premium on carefully applied expertise.

The divide in professional services is between those who verify and those who just publish. Between practitioners who build workflows with confidence scores and exception review, and firms that let AI-generated content sail through with fake citations. Between organizations that treat AI as a force multiplier for human expertise and those that use it to substitute for expertise they never had.

The practical takeaway is to learn the tools, whether that’s Claude Cowork, Copilot Cowork, or whatever comes next. But build human checkpoints into every workflow. Use confidence scoring. Review exceptions. Don’t set it and forget it. The productivity gains are potentially five to ten times traditional methods, but they disappear the moment you skip verification.

The market is already pricing this reality. Clients pay more for advisory, planning, and the assurance that a qualified human reviewed the work. Firms and practitioners who master this balance will command premiums. Those who don’t will find themselves on the wrong side of a restructuring that’s happening right now.

To hear Blake Oliver’s complete breakdown of his AI workflow, David’s full critique of accounting software AI, and more details on KPMG’s “vibe citation” disaster, listen to episode 493 of The Accounting Podcast.

AI Models Now Outperform Human Bookkeepers and One Controller Proves a Finance Team of One Actually Works

Earmark Team · July 8, 2026 ·

A controller at a SaaS company that processes $50 million a month through its marketplace went on a two-week vacation. When he returned, his AI agents had already coded, categorized, approved, and synced 2,000 transactions. He reviewed just 67 (about 3%) by hand, and the entire cleanup took 30 minutes.

James Agius, Financial Controller at Skool, described his actual workflow on a recent episode of The Accounting Podcast. And it landed alongside benchmark data proving that, for the first time, off-the-shelf AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are outperforming human accountants at basic bookkeeping tasks.

Hosts Blake Oliver and David Leary unpacked a series of developments that signal a genuine turning point for accounting. New studies from Digits and Ramp put hard numbers on AI’s bookkeeping abilities. A venture-backed startup led by a former PCAOB board member is building an AI-first audit firm. And KPMG’s entire US management committee flies to Silicon Valley every five to six weeks to meet with startups it views as potential threats.

But AI isn’t arriving to replace a surplus of accountants. It’s showing up amid a talent crisis that has more than tripled the number of unfilled accounting roles in a single year.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: AI Now Matches Human Bookkeepers

For years, the accounting profession has heard promises about AI. Now there’s data to back them up.

Digits just released the fourth version of its benchmark study, and CEO Jeff Seibert shared the results in an interview with David, which is featured on the episode. The test included categorizing over 2,000 transactions across multiple businesses into the correct chart of accounts. They tested all the major AI models (OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini) against outsourced human accountants.

“All of the major model providers have, for the first time, beaten real, outsourced human accountants at bookkeeping tasks,” Jeff told David. The humans scored about 79% accuracy. The AI models came in between 79.4% and 80.7%. The margin is small (about 1.6%), but the direction is clear.

Before anyone dismisses 79% as a low bar, Jeff offered important context. That’s actually typical for outsourced accountants who understand general accounting principles but don’t know the specific business. “They don’t know anything about that business or its industry, supply chain, geography, or customer base,” he explained. That missing context accounts for the 20% error rate.

What’s striking is how similar all the models performed. They’re all within three percentage points of each other. As David put it, basic transaction categorization “is kind of a commodity now.” It’s something everyone will essentially get for free from these models right out of the box.

But purpose-built systems go much further. Digits’ own AI, which learns from each business’s transaction history and can’t hallucinate by design, hits 97.8% accuracy. “Digits mimics the knowledge of a dedicated accountant who you’ve worked with for a number of years,” Jeff said.

The picture changes when you look at more complex work. Ramp tested its new Stack platform on 237 accounting tasks across eight synthetic businesses for categorization and financial close work. Its system scored 65.8%, beating the raw models but well short of perfect. This matches what most accountants experience. AI is great at pattern recognition but still struggles with judgment-heavy tasks.

AI still falls short in complex accruals, according to Jeff. Journal entries, fixed asset schedules, and prepaid expenses are the remaining frontier. Digits responded by launching automated accrual schedules where the AI identifies potential prepaids or fixed assets, drafts the schedule, and the accountant approves it.

Jeff drew an interesting parallel. At his tech company, engineers went from zero AI use to 100% in a single quarter. Jeff himself hasn’t written code since December, despite coding being his passion since age 12. “We have not fired our software engineers,” he said. “They are still critical, but the day to day has changed completely. Instead of them writing the code, they’re guiding the agents.”

One Controller, Zero Staff, $50 Million in Monthly Transactions

James Agius proves what these benchmarks mean in practice. He’s the financial controller at Skool, a SaaS company running online educational communities. The company handles over $5 million in monthly spend with nearly $50 million flowing through its marketplace each month.

James is also the company’s entire finance department. The company doesn’t have any staff accountants, AP clerks, or analysts. It’s just him and seven specialized AI agents, plus an eighth admin agent that checks the others’ work and enforces controls.

When Agius took two weeks off, those 2,000 transactions piled up. His automations handled almost everything, from coding, categorizing and approving to syncing to the ERP. When he returned, just 67 transactions needed human judgment. The cleanup took 30 minutes.

“His job changed from doing the work to reviewing the work,” Blake explained on the podcast. That shift freed Agius for forecasting, cash management, and strategy. It’s the work finance leaders always say they want to do but rarely have time for.

The timing couldn’t be more ironic. Just as AI enables one person to run an entire finance function, the profession can’t find enough people to fill open roles.

A Personiv study cited in Accounting Today found that the number of unfilled accounting and finance positions per company jumped from 5 to 17 in a single year, more than tripling. Eighty-four percent of finance and accounting leaders say there’s a talent shortage. The hardest role to fill is the senior accountant role, cited by 43% of respondents.

The drivers aren’t mysterious. The profession has talked for years about how 75% of CPAs were approaching retirement. “Well, now they’re doing it,” Blake said. And the pipeline is thin because staff accountants have been leaving after just a few years.

As David pointed out, senior accountants are exactly the people who would manage AI agents, so the talent shortage and the AI transition are colliding at the worst possible moment.

Firms are responding by racing to adopt AI. Sixty-three percent of leaders use AI to ease hiring pressure, up from 23% last year. For example, Bennett Thrasher moved talent acquisition from HR to the growth function, treating recruiting as strategically as business development. “The human labor becomes more valuable because it’s augmented,” Blake noted.

The Race to Reinvent

The competitive landscape is shifting as fast as technology. New entrants and incumbents alike are making moves that suggest they see this transformation as irreversible.

Christina Ho, former PCAOB board member and past podcast guest, joined Oath, a venture-backed firm building an AI-native audit practice from scratch. No legacy systems or technical debt. It’s AI-first from day one. They raised $6.6 million in seed funding and aim to automate 80% of audit work by 2030.

Oath plans to connect directly to clients’ accounting systems for continuous verification rather than year-end evidence gathering. CEO Lucas Ward emphasized audit remains “a human accountability function” even as machines handle verification. They’re recruiting “accounting engineers,” hybrid roles combining accounting expertise with computer science skills.

The Big Four are taking notice. KPMG’s US CEO now takes the entire management committee to Silicon Valley every five to six weeks, meeting with venture firms like Andreessen Horowitz and Bessemer to identify potential disruptors. They’re open to partnerships or investments, anything to avoid being blindsided.

On the platform side, Ramp’s new Stack product shows where AI agents might actually live in the workflow. Stack connects to existing tools like QuickBooks and accepts plain-language instructions, like “This client allocates revenue by location, not department. Split it across six cost centers.”

As Blake observed, “The GL is not the best place for agents to live. You want the agents at the point of the transaction.” Ramp already sits at the point of spend, giving its agents rich context about each business. The market agrees. Ramp just raised $750 million at a $44 billion valuation.

Not every AI adoption strategy works, though. KPMG rolled out a dashboard requiring employees to use AI for roughly 75% of their working time. Predictably, employees immediately gamed it. They had AI summarize emails they’d already read or generate random drawings — anything to hit targets. Blake called it “token maxxing,” comparing it to padding billable hours. Amazon shut down a similar program after seeing the same behavior.

What Humans Still Own

Where does human value go when AI handles the routine work? Jeff identified three things AI can’t replace.

  1. Judgment. “AI goes off in weird directions,” he said. Experienced professionals must guide it through ambiguous calls.
  2. Trust. “The AI will tell you anything you want. You can never trust AI.”
  3. Accountability. “It’s never going to be liable for the numbers it gives you. What are you going to do, sue your AI?”

These are the differentiators for accountants who want to stay relevant as machines take over the rest.

All of the evidence from this episode points to AI crossing the competence threshold for basic bookkeeping and advancing toward complex tasks. One controller already runs a $50 million operation solo. Yet unfilled roles have tripled. Senior accountants are impossible to find. The retirement wave is here, and the pipeline is thin.

To thrive, you need to bring what AI can’t: judgment, trust, and accountability. The transition is here.

Listen to the full episode for the rest of Jeff’s interview, details on KPMG Australia’s whistleblower scandal fallout, and a discussion of the IRS leadership vacuum.

Private Equity’s Big Bet on Accounting Firms Is Starting to Look Shaky

Earmark Team · July 2, 2026 ·

CBIZ stock has lost half its value in the past year. Starbucks just killed its AI inventory counting tool after nine months of miscounts. And Microsoft, after investing $13 billion in OpenAI, had to cut off its own engineers from AI coding tools because costs went through the roof.

These stories from the latest episode of The Accounting Podcast paint a picture of where the accounting profession is heading, and it’s not what private equity investors or AI vendors promised.

CBIZ’s Stock Tells a Story About Private Equity’s Future

CBIZ is the only publicly traded accounting firm in the U.S., so its stock price is the closest thing we have to a market report card on the profession’s consolidation strategy. Right now, that report card shows failing grades.

“The stock price of CBIZ, Inc. today is $34.68. That is down 51% over the past year,” host Blake Oliver noted during the episode. When CBIZ bought Marcum at the end of 2024, the stock was at $78. It hit $90 in early 2025, then crashed to about $27 by March before recovering slightly.

What makes this even more interesting is that CBIZ isn’t alone. Co-host David Leary asked Blake to pull up Intuit’s chart for comparison. “Similar chart,” Blake confirmed. Intuit is down 53-54% over the same period. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is up 28%.

The problem is what’s behind the stock price. CBIZ forecasts only 2% – 5% revenue growth for 2026. “That’s less than inflation. So basically, no growth,” Blake explained. “Why would investors be excited about buying stock in a company that’s not really growing much?”

Blake sees a more serious threat to large firms from smaller, more nimble competitors. “The larger the organization, the harder it is to change a business model or to integrate new technology,” he said. “I see smaller, more agile firms becoming a real threat to the large accounting firms. The smaller ones can integrate AI into their systems and switch their billing models.”

The math is simple but meaningful. AI lets a 10-person firm work like a 100-person firm. The traditional advantage of midsize firms (having an expert for everything) disappears when smaller firms can use AI to expand their capabilities.

Private equity firms typically look for efficiencies, not complete reinvention. “They figure out how to get marginally more efficient. They don’t completely reinvent the business model. That’s not what private equity is all about,” Blake explained.

When AI Meets Reality: Starbucks and Microsoft Learn the Hard Way

Starbucks spent nine months trying to make AI inventory counting work. The idea was that employees would walk past shelves, filming with an iPad, and AI from a company called NomadGo would automatically count everything. The company claimed 99% accuracy.

Reality hit hard. “Reuters reported the app often miscounted or mislabeled inventory, including confusing similar milk varieties or failing to recognize them,” Blake noted. Starbucks killed the project. Stores went back to counting by hand.

These failures hit the bottom line. “They were getting product shortages because they thought they had coffee, but didn’t have coffee to sell,” David explained.

Meanwhile, Microsoft discovered that AI coding tools come with a shocking price tag. Despite investing $13 billion in OpenAI and using AI to write 30% of its code, Microsoft had to cut off engineers from these tools because costs exploded. The same thing happened at Uber, where the CTO said they burned through a year’s worth of budgeted tokens in just four months.

The token problem is growing. Blake shared a striking statistic from Forbes: “Anthropic’s annualized net dollar retention exceeds 500%.” That means customers end up spending five times more than they initially expected.

“Nobody knows what they’re buying,” David said. “If I sign up for a monthly plan that gives me 20,000 tokens a month, it feels like enough. And then I’m six days into the month and I have to spend another 40 bucks for more tokens.”

“We’re going to hear a story like this in the next year,” David predicted. “Some firm will say, ‘Our five-person firm spent $300,000 on AI tokens, and we didn’t know it until it was too late.'” 

The Small Firm Revolution: XeroForce and AI Architects

While big firms struggle with their business models and AI costs spiral, something interesting is happening with smaller practices. Xero just launched XeroForce, a tool that could change the game.

“It’s a no-code AI agent builder that lets small businesses and accountants automate repetitive financial tasks using plain language, no technical skills required,” David explained. Unlike chatbots that give one-time answers, these are permanent automations that run on schedule.

Blake immediately saw the potential. “Every week, look at all transactions over $75 in any expense account, and then search my email for receipts and attach those receipts to the transactions. That’s a whole category of apps right there.”

“Accountants have engineer brains. You just don’t know how to write code. And if this can let you create ‘permanent’ code that runs routinely for a client inside Xero, it’ll help you scale,” David said, putting it in terms every accountant can relate to.

But tools alone aren’t enough. Firms need someone to manage this transformation. Donnie Shimamoto, CPA and founder and managing director at Intraprise Techknowlogies, calls this role an “AI architect.”

“Every CPA firm that’s big enough should create an AI architect role,” Blake said, comparing it to the cloud transition. “All the leading firms created these technology roles that were not IT. They were basically operations roles.”

An AI architect would handle security reviews, evaluate different tools, monitor token spending, and train the team. Without this role, firms risk security issues or shocking year-end bills.

For young accountants, Blake had direct advice. “If you’re a student or a young accountant and you want a job, learn this AI stuff. Every firm is going to be hiring an AI architect.”

What History Tells Us About What’s Coming

Blake drew a parallel to when electronic spreadsheets arrived. “The number of bookkeepers employed at accounting firms dropped by about half. We lost like a million bookkeepers over a generation,” he said. “What happened? We had more accountants and, in particular, we had a whole new category of job: financial analysts.”

His prediction for AI follows the same pattern. The number of traditional accountants will decline, but new roles will emerge. “Small businesses will be able to afford controllers and CFOs. They’ve always wanted them but could never afford to hire one.”

Both hosts emphasized the importance of experimenting now. David spent Memorial Day building a production assistant that saves him four hours a week. Blake spent two months creating a tool that automatically reconciles bank accounts.

“Don’t try to build anything groundbreaking,” David advised. “Just solve a simple problem that you have to deal with week after week.”

The Bottom Line

The accounting profession is changing fast, but not in the ways many expected. Large firms with private equity backing face serious challenges if they can’t reinvent their business models. AI implementation is proving harder and more expensive than promised. But smaller, agile firms that experiment with new tools and create AI architect roles could gain a huge competitive advantage.

“If you’re a firm with a few dozen people, you can now compete with firms that have hundreds of staff,” Blake said. That’s an opportunity for firms ready to embrace it.

Want to hear the full discussion, including how the hosts are building their own AI tools? Listen to the complete episode of The Accounting Podcast.

Accountants Rush to Adopt AI While Ignoring the Security Risks That Come With It

Earmark Team · June 19, 2026 ·

Nearly nine out of ten accountants using AI report positive returns. But another statistic is more troubling. Over half of accounting firms have experienced data breaches recently, yet fewer than half have guidelines for how AI handles sensitive financial data. The productivity gains are real, but so are the risks we’re ignoring.

Blake Oliver, host of the Earmark Podcast, recently sat down with David Jani, Senior Content Analyst at Capterra, to unpack Capterra’s 2026 Accounting Software Trends report. The survey of 500 U.S. accounting managers shows the profession has moved beyond testing AI and into territory where the gap between adoption speed and security readiness is becoming dangerous.

 

The Productivity Gains Are Real (With a Catch)

AI in accounting has crossed from experiment to standard practice. More than half of accountants now use AI in their accounting software, and it appears across all company sizes, not just enterprises with big tech budgets. As David noted, “We’ve gone beyond the point of it being companies testing the water with this stuff.”

The most common uses for AI are chatbots and AI assistants, followed by data entry automation and fraud detection. AI is also making headway in predictive analytics, cash flow forecasting, smart invoicing, and bank reconciliation. David described it as “a coalescence around analytics and process-driven tasks.”

The 89% positive ROI figure comes from two main benefits. Half of respondents cite productivity gains, and nearly as many report reduced errors. So firms see real time savings and quality improvements.

But 48% of accountants manually check every single AI output. Not spot-checking, but checking everything. And about a third catch errors in their AI outputs more than half the time.

How do you square 89% positive ROI with error rates that high? David’s practical take is AI is “creating some gains in some areas, creating some extra work in others,” but the net result stays positive. Even when you add review time, firms come out ahead. But he cautioned, “It’s important that businesses still keep a close eye on the ROI of these situations and confirm it is delivering those gains.”

Meanwhile, plenty of work remains manual. More than half of respondents still handle financial reporting through spreadsheets or manual processes. Accounts payable and receivable, billing, invoicing, and payroll are all heavily manual. And yes, 51% of accountants still use Excel or Google Sheets for financial data. As Blake observed, spreadsheets have survived 40 years and aren’t going anywhere soon.

The Security Gap No One’s Taking Seriously

While firms celebrate productivity wins, the security picture is alarming, and almost nobody seems concerned enough to act.

Consider 52% of accounting managers surveyed have experienced a data breach in the last two years. That’s more than half. While David doesn’t have data linking these directly to AI, what he found about AI and sensitive data should worry every firm leader.

“Most companies don’t have clear guidelines on how they use AI tools with sensitive data,” David revealed. Fewer than half (49%) have guidelines for employee and payroll information. Coverage of bank reconciliation and customer billing data is even lower.

The perception gap is striking. Nearly half view AI cybersecurity risk as “minor,” another 12% as “insignificant,” and only 3% as “critical.” This might be “why so many people don’t have guidelines. Unfortunately, they just don’t perceive the risks at play,” David said.

Blake painted a scenario that’s probably happening now. Someone uploads payroll reports into free ChatGPT, where the terms of service may allow the vendor to train on that data. “We really need to step up,” he said.

The risks go deeper. Blake raised the issue of prompt injection, which involves hidden text in documents that manipulates AI agents into leaking data or changing payment information. It’s sophisticated and hard to defend against. As David acknowledged, “It’s a very new and rather sophisticated way of extracting information from a company. We still don’t really know enough about it.”

David didn’t sugarcoat his advice. “Guidelines around this don’t seem like much, and obviously, everyone is rushing to get AI tools. But it’s a huge risk factor we need to address.”

AI Is Raising the Bar

If AI makes accountants more productive, you’d expect fewer jobs. But the data tells a different story, and it came as a surprise to David.

“Despite a lot of reports predicting the end of accountants, it’s not really what we found,” he said. Companies are adopting AI, but “it’s not necessarily affecting hiring decisions in the same way. A lot of companies are actually more focused on upskilling.”

Blake offered a historical perspective. The same panic hit when VisiCalc and Excel arrived 40 years ago, yet accounting jobs grew. When cloud computing transformed the industry, client accounting services didn’t shrink. Instead, it’s grown year over year for a decade.

The talent shortage persists, with 73% of firms reporting trouble with retention and hiring. The hardest roles to fill are mid-career positions. About a third struggle to find financial analysts, with specialized accountants (tax and cost accounting) close behind.

The paradox is AI actually increases the need for experienced professionals. Someone must review those AI outputs that are wrong half the time. Someone must understand the AI well enough to catch mistakes. Someone must manage the security implications. All that requires judgment and experience, and that’s exactly what’s hardest to hire right now.

The data backs this up. Upskilling existing staff is the dominant strategy at 40%, double the 21% using AI to fill staffing gaps. Traditional hiring sits at 31%, with graduate programs at 23%. The profession is betting on people, not automation, to solve its workforce problem.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Choices

What keeps accountants up at night? Budgeting and forecasting in an uncertain economy tops the list, followed by figuring out how to use AI effectively. As David put it, firms are trying to understand AI “in a way that makes sense.”

David has specific advice for where firms should invest their AI dollars. Map investments to your particular needs rather than chasing trends. For general guidance, he pointed to data entry automation and predictive modeling tools, especially cash flow forecasting and analysis dashboards, as areas delivering the most value.

When asked to predict what might change by the 2027 survey, David hopes to see more firms with updated security guidelines. “I think as these tools become more mature, more people will update their guidelines, especially for handling sensitive data like payroll and cash flow,” he said.

A Gap Between Speed and Safety

The Capterra data shows the profession is getting AI both right and dangerously wrong. The 89% positive ROI is genuine. Firms are saving time and reducing errors, even after factoring in review burdens. But that headline obscures the fact that over half have experienced breaches, fewer than half have AI data guidelines, and most dismiss the cybersecurity risk as minor, even with threats like prompt injection that the profession barely understands.

AI isn’t solving the talent crisis either. It’s raising the bar for what accountants need to know, making experienced reviewers more critical while the mid-career talent shortage intensifies.

Firms must build guardrails, write guidelines, and invest in upskilling their people to successfully work alongside technology that’s powerful but imperfect.

Want to dig deeper into these findings? Listen to Blake’s full conversation with David on the Earmark Podcast, and earn free NASBA CPE while you’re at it. 

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 26
  • Go to Next Page »

Copyright © 2026 Earmark Inc. ・Log in

  • Help Center
  • Get The App
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Press Room
  • Contact Us
  • Refund Policy
  • Complaint Resolution Policy
  • About Us