Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

The Earmark Podcast

IPA Survey Data Reveals What Best of the Best Firms Actually Do Differently Than the Rest

· ·

“I can’t wrap my brain around how we’re going to utilize technology and make our work more efficient. How do we bill that if we’re billing by the hour? Are we going to start having reduced fees on their invoices? No. So what does that look like?”

That question from Chelsea Summers, Executive Director of Inside Public Accounting, captures the paradox facing the profession right now. Two-thirds of accounting firm revenue still comes from hourly billing, even as AI promises to slash the time it takes to complete work. Something has to give.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Chelsea to dig into firm performance data heading into 2026. Inside Public Accounting has been benchmarking accounting firms since 1987. Its latest survey includes over 600 firms, from Deloitte all the way down to firms around $6.5 million in revenue. The numbers tell a story that’s both reassuring and challenging for firm leaders.

The reassuring part is the playbook for outperformance isn’t complicated. Top firms charge what they’re worth, leverage their staff better, and embrace offshore teams. The challenging part is the profession’s attachment to hourly billing might be the single biggest barrier to capturing value from technology investments.

The Best Firms Don’t Work Harder; They Work Smarter

Every year, IPA identifies its “Best of the Best” firms based on 30 different operational metrics. These firms are profitable, but they also have low turnover, succession plans, marketing strategies, and overall organizational health. “Operationally, you’re a high performing firm that’s going to succeed,” Chelsea explained.

The performance gaps between these top firms and everyone else are striking:

  • Revenue per employee: The best firms generate $272,000 per full-time equivalent versus $220,000 for all firms
  • Leverage ratios: Top performers maintain 17.7 professionals per partner compared to 11.8 for average firms
  • Partner billing rates: Best firms charge $588 per hour while others charge $448

That last number deserves emphasis. Top firms are charging $140 more per partner hour, a 30% premium.

But these high-performers don’t necessarily burn out their people to get these results. “The big myth is that high performing firms push people harder, and that’s why they’re making more money,” Chelsea said. “But in reality, those high performing firms often have healthier capacities because they’re using that leverage and they’re using more specialized roles.”

When IPA compared utilization rates and chargeable hours between Best of the Best firms and everyone else, the numbers were nearly identical. Same hours worked, dramatically different outcomes.

The secret is putting the right people in the right roles. Top firms use more client service staff for production work and keep partners focused on partner-level activities like training, business development, and client relationships. When partners step back into production work and start micromanaging, it hurts morale and growth.

Offshoring Has Reached a Tipping Point

Over half of IPA’s survey participants now use some form of offshoring or outsourcing, and less than 5% plan to decrease it. Nearly everyone else plans to grow or maintain their offshore headcount. This is the new normal.

The performance data backs up the strategy. Firms with offshore teams reported 8.1% organic growth versus 7.5% for firms without them. They also saw a 9% improvement in margins.

“Nine percent is a lot,” Blake noted during the conversation. And he’s right. That kind of margin improvement can transform a firm’s economics.

What’s changed is how firms use these teams. The old model treated offshore staff like a processing center for data entry. Today’s successful firms fully integrate offshore team members. They have branded offices, firm email addresses, training opportunities, and direct client communication.

“Really making that individual feel a part of the team is very helpful in correctly utilizing them and making sure they feel the value of working at the firm,” Chelsea explained.

As technology automates the basic data entry tasks that initially justified offshoring, these team members are moving up to manager-level work, supporting advisory services, and contributing to internal operations. The offshore strategy and the technology strategy work together.

Firms Have More Pricing Power Than They Think

One pattern emerged repeatedly in Chelsea’s conversations with firm leaders: they consistently underestimate what clients will pay. “We have all these D and F clients, we want to cull them so we raise their prices 40%. But they all stay,” she shared.

A 40% price increase, and the clients don’t leave. That should make every managing partner pause and reconsider their pricing strategy.

In today’s inflationary environment, not raising prices can actually send the wrong signal. “When your CPA firm doesn’t increase their prices, then you almost say, are they not very good? Do they not believe in their work?” Chelsea observed.

Blake connected this to a broader pattern he’s seen across firms of all sizes. “We talk a lot when we talk about small firms about how they’re underpricing. It’s the same tendency in the midsize and the larger firms where some firms just don’t charge enough. They have pricing power and they’re not using it.”

The Advisory Pivot Is Slower Than Expected

Despite years of conference presentations about the shift to advisory, most firms still generate less than one-third of their revenue from advisory services. Tax and assurance continue to dominate, accounting for about two-thirds of revenue at the average firm.

“That’s really contrary to all the talk that we’re hearing on advisory,” Chelsea said. “I think it is [the future], but the data just isn’t showing that that is yet the predominant model inside most firms.”

Client accounting services, once positioned as the gateway to advisory, are growing but not explosively. Larger firms have shifted their thinking about CAS. “It seems like a lot of firms, especially the larger firms, have shifted away from feeling like that’s a foot in the door to like, that might be a strategy, but that’s not our only strategy going forward,” Chelsea explained.

For firms succeeding with advisory, a few patterns stand out. They have a dedicated internal champion who isn’t juggling 15 other responsibilities. They invest upfront and accept that returns take time. And they recognize that advisory service lines need different processes than tax and assurance work.

AI Faces Cultural Barriers More Than Technical Ones

When Chelsea asks firms about their return on technology investments, the responses are telling. “They’re like, how do we even do that? What does that look like? What does an ROI even mean?”

That said, firms are finding value in specific areas. Tax research stands out as a clear win. Being able to have AI synthesize complex tax code information saves significant time. Workflow automation, document processing, data extraction, and AI-assisted drafting also deliver results.

But adoption is slower than expected, and the blockers are mostly cultural. Partner skepticism leads the list, followed by change management resistance. “The accounting profession is certainly not known for being early adopters,” Chelsea noted.

There’s also a timing problem. Many firms shelved their AI discussions in December for tax season. When they picked them back up in May, there was different software, different models, different capabilities. “You’ve missed all of that research time and possible adoption time just because you’re too busy doing tax season,” Chelsea explained.

We Can’t Ignore the Billing Model Problem Much Longer

Throughout the conversation, Chelsea kept returning to the incompatibility between hourly billing and efficiency gains from technology.

She actually expected the 2025 data to show movement away from hourly billing. Instead, it went slightly in the other direction. Two-thirds of revenue still comes from billable-hour models, and much of what firms call “fixed fee” pricing is just hourly billing in disguise: time estimates multiplied by rates, presented as a flat fee.

Blake shared his own experience to illustrate the problem. When his CAS firm adopted cloud technology early, efficiency gains were 80%. “We couldn’t bill hourly or we’d lose all our revenue,” he said. “We were forced to switch to fixed fees.”

If AI delivers even half those efficiency gains for tax and audit work, firms clinging to hourly billing will face the same reckoning. Except unlike CAS, which was easier to start fresh with new pricing models, tax and audit are where hourly billing is most entrenched.

For firms evaluating technology investments, Chelsea recommends asking three questions:

  1. Does this reduce manual work in a measurable way?
  2. Does it integrate with existing workflows?
  3. Will it free staff to do higher-value work?

If the answers are yes, the investment probably makes sense, even if you can’t calculate a ROI yet.

The Clock Is Ticking

The IPA data paints a clear picture of where the profession stands today. Top performers are executing on fundamentals. They charge appropriately, leverage staff effectively, and embrace offshore teams. Meanwhile, the broader profession remains tied to hourly billing, is moving slowly toward advisory services, and is largely waiting for clearer signals on AI.

For firm leaders, this creates opportunity and urgency. The playbook for better performance isn’t complicated, but the window to adapt might be narrowing. Firms that figure out how to decouple revenue from hours worked will be positioned to benefit from technology investments. Those that don’t may watch their revenue shrink as efficiency gains eat into billable hours.

“I’m crossing my fingers that 2026 we’re going to see some change,” Chelsea said about the billing model evolution. Given what’s at stake, the entire profession should be crossing their fingers with her.

For a deeper dive into these insights, including specific benchmarks on compensation trends, capacity planning, and technology adoption, listen to the full conversation between Blake and Chelsea on the Earmark Podcast. You can earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit for listening.

The Billable Hour Is Broken and Every Firm Leader Knows It. So Why Won’t Anyone Kill It?

· ·

Richard Lynch can list every reason the billable hour is broken. It undervalues experienced professionals, creates perverse incentives, burns people out, and reduces human beings to time-tracked units. But without a hint of irony, he admits that Sikich, one of the largest CPA firms in the country, still tracks hours “on a religious basis.”

That contradiction tells you everything about where the accounting profession stands right now.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Richard, a managing principal at Sikich with over 25 years in public accounting. They had an honest conversation about where things actually stand. Not where the conference keynotes say they stand or where vendor demos suggest they stand, but where they actually stand inside accounting and advisory firms, at the level where someone still has to fill out a timesheet at 9 p.m. on a Tuesday.

The takeaway is that the profession’s transformation is stalling because firms can’t let go of the operational scaffolding they’ve built around the billable hour.

The Super Accountant Vision

Richard has a term for what’s coming: the “super accountant.” It sounds like marketing language, but his definition is specific. A super accountant has AI fluency, strong judgment, and understands compliance without needing to physically perform it. “They’re not a tech person doing accounting work,” Richard explains. “They are a technical person, maybe a CPA, that specifically knows how to leverage technology.”

The structural change everyone talks about is the pyramid becoming a diamond with fewer people at the entry level and more in the middle. But Richard makes an important distinction. The bottom rung is moving up in capability, not disappearing. Future CPAs will “reach a higher level of intellect, capability, and advisory skills at a much earlier age without decreasing the standards.”

Richard points to how this has happened before. Thirty or forty years ago, interns got coffee and made copies. Today, interns do actual client work. “The capability of interns moved up,” he says. The same shift is about to happen again, just bigger.

But the education system isn’t ready. Accounting programs are mostly theoretical. They “lay a foundation,” Richard says, but “certainly don’t give you anything that is pretty or accessible to a client.” Firms will have to bridge the gap with intensive training, it may look like six to eight months where new hires don’t touch billable work, just learn the craft.

The Review Problem

Blake raises the concern many accountants have voiced. If AI does all the basic work, how do people learn to review? The whole system depends on doing the work first, making mistakes, getting feedback, and building judgment.

Richard doesn’t dismiss this. He calls it “a real concern” and says you “can’t underestimate or understate the value of experience.” But then he reframes it with an analogy.

Try explaining to kids today why they need to know how to use an encyclopedia. It seems absurd. The skill became irrelevant because the tool changed. What replaced it was arguably harder: filtering reliable information from unreliable information online.

The same thing is happening with review. “Technology will take care of putting it in the proper box,” Richard says. “Your objective is to have the filter of understanding how to interpret the outcome.” And he goes further: “There may be a benefit to actually not having that anchor of how we used to do business.”

This isn’t theoretical. Tax GPT claims it fully automated 1040 preparation. Basis says it’s done the same for partnership returns. Richard has talked to both vendors. The pace of accuracy improvement is “impressive.” AI is rapidly getting to where it’s “right more than it’s wrong.”

But Richard draws an important distinction. Completing a tax return is just compliance. The real product is what happens after: the advice on paying less tax, structuring a business sale, or planning succession. “When you engage with your clients beyond delivering compliance services,” Richard notes, “fees don’t really come up.”

Why the Billable Hour Won’t Die

“Our people hate entering their time,” Richard says plainly. “There’s no value to the time they spend entering their time and it undervalues us.” Experienced professionals solve complex problems in an hour because they have 30 years of experience. Bill that as one hour, and you’re “undervaluing the 30 years of experience that allowed you to answer that question.”

Richard calls abandoning timesheets “the Mount Everest” of firm transformation. The billable hour is the operating system. Everything runs on it, including utilization, productivity, margin, capacity planning, performance evaluation, even work-life balance monitoring. “You can’t really erase billable hours without erasing all of it,” he says.

Then Richard makes an argument Blake hadn’t considered before. Timesheets might actually help prevent burnout. Sikich monitors employees running over their expected hours and treats it as a capacity problem. Without those guardrails, Richard argues, ambitious people “will work so hard, they’ll burn themselves out really quickly.”

But Blake zeros in on the real issue. AI has destroyed the link between time and value. If AI makes your team twice as fast, the client pays half as much under hourly billing. That math doesn’t work anymore.

So what replaces hours? “We haven’t necessarily identified a better alternative,” Richard admits. Accountants like data and hours provide lots of data. Any replacement becomes more subjective. Client satisfaction? Value delivered? Team engagement? These are harder to measure, and for a profession built on measurement, that’s a problem.

The Basketball Team Problem

Richard draws on his sports background to explain what might work better. Think about the 1990s Chicago Bulls. Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen scored the points. But Dennis Rodman, the defensive specialist who didn’t score much, was essential. His contribution didn’t show up in the headline stats, but the team needed him.

“We’re not even looking at points. We are looking at time on the court.” Blake points out. The profession measures the wrong thing entirely.

But Richard warns that team models only work if everyone performs. If Rodman doesn’t hustle for rebounds while Pippen is scoring, or if Pippen takes a game off while Rodman is sacrificing his body, the whole thing falls apart. “You have to have a culture where the team performs within kind of a standard deviation of each other.”

The deeper problem is cultural. “The connotation of the employee becomes, I am an hours-based person. All I am is hours,” Richard says. When every review, promotion, or conversation starts with “how many hours did you work,” people internalize that their value is their time. Not their judgment or ideas.

And the system treats every hour as equal, which Richard calls “baseline, categorically false.” Some people think faster. That doesn’t make them more valuable, but under an hours system, it makes them look more productive.

The Implementation Gap

Richard says people actually don’t burn out from long hours. “I don’t hear complaints about the hours when it’s engaging work,” he says. He says his team gets excited working a long weekend for a complex client issue. The burnout comes from being stuck at 9 p.m. “dealing with software issues and plugging numbers into spreadsheets.”

AI can eliminate that burnout-causing work. But only if firms actually let it.

“We’re playing with it, but we’re not really implementing it,” Richard says. “We’re purchasing it, but we’re not really relying on it.” Firms pour billions into AI tools, but their training, career paths, and daily operations haven’t changed. The technology is there but the willingness to break old processes isn’t.

“There will be progression and there will be extinction. The question is at what pace,” Richard says, framing the stakes clearly.

Working harder won’t compensate for failure to adopt anymore. Buying AI products doesn’t mean you’re adopting AI. And trying to fit AI into existing processes instead of letting it break them is a choice with consequences.

“If you consistently try to find a place of complacency and comfort, you will not adopt at the pace necessary,” Richard warns.

The Choice Firms Are Making Right Now

What makes this conversation valuable is Richard’s willingness to acknowledge he doesn’t have all the answers. “I still have a lot to learn,” he says.

He can see the billable hour is broken and the pyramid is unsustainable. He can see buying AI tools without changing operations is theater. And Sikich is still tracking hours religiously.

That honesty tells you where the real work is. The super accountant future requires dismantling training models, educational assumptions, and measurement systems that have existed for decades. Not just purchasing new software.

For accounting professionals at every level, including partners making decisions, managers caught between old metrics and new realities, or someone early in their career wondering what’s ahead, the question is whether the firm will let AI change your work.

Richard has a message for other firm leaders: “Don’t let fear rule the day.” The firms that use AI as permission to break outdated processes will thrive. The firms that bolt AI onto unchanged operations will struggle. And that divergence is accelerating.

“I have every desire to be on the side of progression,” Richard says. Which side is your firm choosing?

Listen to the full conversation between Blake and Richard on the Earmark Podcast for deeper discussion on replacement metrics for the billable hour, building the super accountant pipeline, and why letting go of the past might be the profession’s biggest challenge. Then visit earmark.app to earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit.

The IRS Now Knows Who’s Trading Crypto But Can’t Tell What Anyone Owes

· ·

The IRS now knows who’s trading crypto, but it still can’t tell if anyone owes tax. That’s the reality of the new 1099-DA reporting system that just went live, and it’s about to affect every tax professional with crypto clients.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Lawrence Zlatkin, Vice President of Tax at Coinbase, to explain what the new 1099-DA form reports, where the gaps are, and what changes Coinbase is pushing for in Washington. With a front-row seat to crypto taxation’s biggest challenges, Lawrence offered insight on where the system works (and where it doesn’t).

The problem is that the IRS’s new reporting brings crypto tax enforcement into the mainstream, but the underlying framework creates massive overreporting with little tax benefit. Treating stablecoins as property and requiring reports on tiny gas fees generates millions of forms that tell the government almost nothing about actual tax liability. Tax professionals must bridge the gap between what the IRS receives and what matters for computing taxes.

The 1099-DA: What’s There and What’s Missing

Think of the 1099-DA as crypto’s version of the 1099-B that brokers send for stock trades. The basic concept is familiar: the form goes to your client and the IRS, and the government matches what taxpayers report against what exchanges report. Tax pros have worked with this system for decades.

But this first-year version is bare-bones. As Lawrence explained, “We are implementing the system barely 18 months after Congress issued the regulations. The 1099-B system was developed over a period of five years, and even longer for gross proceeds.”

The result is a “skeletal version” that reports just two things: who the customer is and their gross proceeds from transactions. The critical missing piece is cost basis.

“We’re including basis for our customers for informational purposes, but that information is not actually going to the government,” Lawrence said. Next year, exchanges will start reporting basis, but only when they have it.

Blake walked through a simple example. Say your client sells Bitcoin for $100. The IRS gets a 1099-DA showing $100 in gross proceeds. But if your client bought that Bitcoin for $90, the actual taxable gain is just $10. That $10 is the only number that matters for taxes, but it’s invisible to the government this year.

The problem worsens with transfers between wallets and exchanges. When crypto leaves Coinbase for a self-custody wallet or another exchange, the basis tracking breaks. “The only person who knows what’s in a non-custodial wallet is you because you’re the owner,” Lawrence explained. When that crypto returns to an exchange, there’s no way to reconstruct what happened in between.

So what’s the point of all this reporting? Lawrence was candid. “The government’s concern has been that there’s been underreporting and noncompliance in the ecosystem generally. So what this achieves from their standpoint is they find out who’s really participating.”

Until now, the IRS’s only crypto signal was that checkbox on the 1040, which Lawrence diplomatically called “gobbledygook.” It asks about digital asset transactions. Now the IRS will see actual dollar amounts attached to names. They’ll spot whales with millions in proceeds. They’ll identify non-filers.

“There’s nothing nefarious or awful or evil about that,” Lawrence said. “It’s just that they will have that information they didn’t otherwise have before.”

The practical takeaway is, “you are in control of your tax data,” Lawrence emphasized. Clients who consolidate their activity on a single exchange will have better records. Coinbase provides transaction history and gain/loss data through its “position service.” But clients bouncing between exchanges and wallets need to maintain their own records. Nobody else can do it for them.

The Stablecoin Problem: When Property Isn’t Property

Missing basis data would be manageable if the tax framework made sense. It doesn’t, especially for stablecoins.

Since 2014, the IRS has classified all crypto as property rather than currency or cash equivalents. This includes stablecoins like USDC, which are designed to trade at exactly $1. Every time your client uses USDC, that’s a reportable disposition of property.

“Stablecoins are designed to be stable and consistent and traded at par with the US dollar,” Lawrence said. “99.9% of the time, it’s intended to trade within a fraction of a decimal of the US dollar. So in essence, we’re not reporting a gain or loss. So it’s over-reporting of data. There’s no fundamental purpose for that. I would argue that the only reason for that is surveillance.”

The scale is significant. Coinbase must report stablecoin transactions exceeding $10,000 to the government. Hundreds of thousands of customers received 1099s this year that include these transactions. And taxpayers must report even smaller amounts. Coinbase just won’t tell the IRS about those.

Blake offered his own example. Earmark uses USDC to pay vendors for international transactions where stablecoins are faster than traditional banking. Under current rules, every payment is a reportable property disposition. “It’s as if the IRS got every bank transaction,” Blake said. “Americans would never stand for that. We’d call that surveillance and overreach.”

Lawrence revealed this isn’t hypothetical. Five years ago, the Treasury Department proposed requiring banks to report credit card transactions over $10,000 in aggregate. “That was quashed for the reasons you just described,” he said. Yet here we are with stablecoins.

There’s a small silver lining. “The tax system is based on income. If there’s no gain or loss, there’s no taxable income, and there’s no penalty,” Lawrence explained. You can’t underpay taxes on zero gain. But the reporting requirement still exists.

De Minimis Madness: When Pennies Become Paperwork

Beyond stablecoins, tiny transactions that generate enormous paperwork are another reporting nightmare.

Gas fees, which are the network costs for blockchain transactions, often involve disposing of pennies or fractions of dollars worth of Ethereum. Each one is technically a property disposition that must be tracked and reported. Each might have actual (if microscopic) gain or loss.

The volume is staggering. Coinbase files millions of 1099-DAs containing hundreds of millions of underlying transactions that feed into Form 8949. Lawrence estimates that about half qualify as de minimis, meaning they’re essentially meaningless for tax purposes.

“We’re not going to pave roads and solve the deficit on the backs of de minimis reporting for crypto,” Lawrence argued. He’s pushing for a threshold below which transactions become exempt from reporting or taxation. Should it be $5? $50? $200? Should it be income-based or transaction-based?

“At what point do we stop requiring reporting for transactions?” Lawrence asked. “If the IRS gets bombarded with billions of transactions that are tiny in nature because people are required to report them, the system itself breaks.”

These billions of transactions are being reported today, and the IRS’s ancient computer systems must somehow process them all.

The Washington Agenda: Common Sense Reforms in Political Gridlock

Lawrence came with a clear policy agenda that included ten priorities, although the conversation covered highlighted six in detail.

Beyond stablecoins and de minimis thresholds, Coinbase is pushing for the following reforms:

  • Crypto lending should work like securities lending. “You’re not disposing of crypto because you’re going to get the same amount back,” Lawrence explained. Under current securities rules, that’s not taxable. Crypto should be the same.
  • Staking rewards timing. The IRS says rewards are taxable when received. Others argue they shouldn’t be taxed until sold. “That’s a source of friction and debate,” Lawrence noted.
  • Charitable deductions are perhaps the clearest absurdity. Donate over $5,000 in Bitcoin, and you need a formal appraisal. “You can type it in Google and get a Bitcoin price, just like you get the price of any stock or security,” Lawrence said. Bitcoin has “readily ascertainable fair market value.” The appraisal requirement is “ridiculous.”
  • Foreign investment rules. The US has safe harbors that allow non-US persons to trade securities through US brokers without triggering US tax. No equivalent exists for crypto. “We’re the best and safest market in the world,” Lawrence said. “We’d like to preserve that for crypto, not just for regular old investment assets.”

So why hasn’t anything passed?

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Lawrence said. President Trump has been supportive. He met with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong last week. The White House issued a report on digital assets, including tax provisions. Treasury has been “by and large very supportive.”

But Congress is the bottleneck. The House is narrowly Republican-controlled, and crypto has become more partisan than it should be. “This should not be a partisan debate,” Lawrence insisted. “This ecosystem benefits Democrats and Republicans.”

The Clarity Act for crypto regulation is under discussion. So is broader tax reform. But as Lawrence diplomatically put it, “Things don’t move as quickly as we might like in Washington.”

What This Means for Tax Professionals

The picture Lawrence painted is clear, even if the rules aren’t. The 1099-DA tells the IRS who’s trading and how much, but it lacks the cost basis needed to determine actual tax liability. Tax professionals must fill that gap by reconciling gross proceeds against basis records scattered across exchanges, wallets, and spreadsheets.

Meanwhile, classifying stablecoins as property without de minimis rules creates millions of reportable transactions with zero tax consequences. It’s all noise, no signal.

The reforms Coinbase wants make sense. But with narrow Congressional majorities and partisan friction, don’t expect relief before next filing season.

The message for practitioners is crypto is no longer niche. With millions of 1099-DAs arriving and IRS matching letters sure to follow, you need to understand what these forms show, how to help clients track basis, and where the traps are. Firms that build this expertise now will serve a growing client base. Those who don’t risk being blindsided along with their clients.

“Everyone wants to talk about tax,” Lawrence joked at the start. By the end, it’s clear why. The intersection of crypto and tax is where innovation meets regulation, and right now, regulation is playing catch-up.

Listen to the complete episode of the Earmark Podcast for Lawrence’s full breakdown of Coinbase’s policy priorities and practical advice on basis tracking. You can earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit by listening and taking a short quiz at earmarkcpe.com.

A Private Equity Insider Explains What Happens After Your Firm Gets Acquired

· ·

Devin Mathews has a 14-year-old dog that had never been sedated for a dental cleaning—not once in 14 and a half years. Then a private equity firm bought his veterinary office. Suddenly, the dog needed his teeth cleaned twice a year, at $1,000 a pop.

“I never knew my dog needed so many dental services,” Devin tells Blake Oliver on the latest episode of the Earmark Podcast. “It’s the upsell opportunity.”

This small anecdote captures the anxiety spreading through the accounting profession as private equity floods in. What really changes when PE takes over? Who benefits? Who gets hurt? And what about artificial intelligence? Is it going to make all these PE investments obsolete?

Devin brings an insider’s perspective with an outsider’s freedom to speak plainly. As a partner at ParkerGale Capital with 30 years in private equity, he knows the playbook. But since his firm invests in software companies, not accounting firms, he can share what really happens without affecting any deals. He regularly fields calls from employees at freshly acquired firms trying to figure out what just happened to their careers.

The Satisfaction Gap: Partners vs. Everyone Else

Blake starts with data that sets the tone for the entire conversation. An Accounting Today survey found that over two-thirds of partners at PE-backed accounting firms say they’re satisfied with their experience. But only about 15% of non-partner employees feel the same way.

“Let me get this straight. The partners who got paid in the transaction are ecstatic because they have terminal value,” Devin says. “And the rank and file who probably didn’t even know the business was for sale, their lives have completely changed, and expectations have gone through the roof.”

That’s the core issue. When PE acquires an accounting firm, the capital is there to buy out the existing owners, not fund operations. Partners cash out. Staff wake up to a Zoom call announcing new ownership and dramatically different expectations.

Most employees don’t realize how much analysis has already happened before that announcement. “Some 26-year-old in New York has run all that math,” Devin explains, “and they literally know you and your business better than you know it.” PE firms have sorted every employee by bill rate and utilization. They’ve hired McKinsey or Bain to benchmark everything against industry standards. They know exactly where they can push harder.

The first target is the person who gets paid a lot but doesn’t bill many hours. “This guy has been around for a long time,” Devin describes. “Maybe they’re great at business development, but they’re just not billing the hours anymore.”

How PE Actually Makes Money in Accounting

The mechanics are straightforward: bill more hours, raise bill rates, get more efficient, and make acquisitions. When revenue equals people times hours times rates, those are your main levers.

But Devin acknowledges the challenge with professional services. “The assets walk out the door every night.” Push too hard, and those assets can walk across the street to one of the 44,600 CPA firms in North America that aren’t owned by private equity.

Blake raises a critical point based on his own experience as a manager at a top-25 firm. The traditional path of working your way up, becoming a partner, and receiving ownership and profit distributions disappears under PE ownership. Instead, you get RSUs or phantom equity that only pay out if there’s an exit event.

“You drive home after that speech,” Devin imagines, “and you say to your spouse, ‘Remember that path I had to be a partner? That’s gone. Now I only get paid if there’s an exit.'”

Good PE firms try to address this through transparency and communication. Devin describes his ideal post-acquisition speech: acknowledge the surprise, address the fear directly, and promise that resources will match the higher expectations. “Expectations of ten out of ten, resources of ten out of ten. That’s a great combination.”

But the reality hits later on. “I walk you through the PowerPoint and it sounds really great,” Devin says. “Then six months later you’d be like, ‘Where’s Devin? What happened?'” The speech is easy. Delivering on it is where most PE firms struggle.

AI Changes Everything, But Not How You Think

The conversation takes an unexpected turn when they start talking about artificial intelligence. AI is threatening the entire economic model PE investments depend on.

Devin’s firm is all-in on AI. Every Friday is “DIY Friday,” and everyone spends two hours experimenting with AI tools, trying to replicate workflows, and testing what works. They pay for all the major models. They’re true believers.

But the results aren’t quite what they’re hoping for. “A lot of times it takes me twice as long to review and audit what the AI built than it would have taken me to build it on my own,” Devin admits. The tools hallucinate. It’s “wildly confident about things it knows nothing about.”

The key insight is that AI is a “ceiling raiser, not a floor raiser.” It makes experienced professionals amazing. It makes entry-level people only slightly better because of domain knowledge. An experienced accountant can spot what the AI got wrong and fix it. An entry-level accountant doesn’t know enough to catch the mistakes.

“An entry-level developer, like an entry-level accountant, doesn’t have enough domain knowledge or experience to see what the AI did wrong,” Devin explains.

“It’s a great time to be mid-level or experienced. It’s a bad time to be entry-level,” Blake observes, noting the cruel paradox. The routine tasks that used to train new accountants, like sampling, confirmations, and rolling forward work papers, are being automated first.

The legal profession offers a preview. Harvey, an AI platform for law firms, raised about half a billion dollars. It claims to work at the level of a fifth-year Harvard Law associate. Every major firm supposedly uses it. “But Kirkland and Ellis isn’t charging me any less than they used to,” Devin notes. The efficiency gains aren’t reaching clients. Firms capture them as profit.

Your Options Are Better Than They Appear

So what should accounting professionals actually do? Devin has specific advice.

First, if you’re at a PE-backed firm, demand transparency. “Show me Bain Capital’s value creation plan,” he suggests. “How did they underwrite this, and how are they going to get there?” Understanding the plan helps you align your work and see your compensation trajectory. If they won’t share it, that tells you something, too.

Devin identifies three problems that plague most firms before PE arrives. There’s no clear plan (or too many plans), no communication about why leaders make decisions, and nobody understands how compensation works. Good PE ownership can fix these issues. Bad PE ownership makes them worse.

The good news is, PE has bought only about 400 of the 45,000 CPA firms in the US. “There are 44,600 CPA firms in North America that aren’t owned by private equity,” Devin points out. “And you can leave.”

Devin has advice for early-career accountants facing pressure from private equity and AI automation: Start your own firm.

“Get really good with the AI. Way better than the 35-year-old or the 45-year-old. And start your own firm. Be an AI-first accounting firm, and you own all of it.”

It’s never been easier, he argues. You can set up an LLC on LegalZoom. You can reach clients directly through LinkedIn or YouTube. The barriers that kept young professionals locked into traditional firm hierarchies are crumbling.

“It’s pretty obvious most adults have no idea what they’re doing, and they’re mostly full of BS,” Devin says with characteristic bluntness. “So don’t wait for your turn. Go get it.”

The Bottom Line

The traditional accounting career ladder is being dismantled. PE is removing the path to partnership, and AI is removing the entry-level work that trains new accountants.

But professionals who understand what’s actually happening have more options than they might think. There are still 44,600 independent firms. Starting your own practice has never been easier. And if you’re staying put, you can at least demand to see the plan and understand where you fit.

As Devin puts it, “Why do you need to wait in line and have some private equity firm tell you how you get to run your business? Go find some other people who believe in it the way you do, and go build the firm in your image.”

For the full conversation, including Devin’s stories about his own podcast journey and more details on how PE firms evaluate acquisition targets, listen to the complete episode of the Earmark Podcast.

Leading with Empathy: Building Accounting Teams That Thrive

· ·

Earn free NASBA-approved CPE for listening to this episode. Visit Earmarkcpe.com, take a short quiz, and get your certificate.

“Star performers aren’t immune from accountability,” says Lisa Gilreath, Managing Partner at Acuity. “Often they perform really high. But you’re going to see the other half of your team suffer in terms of their performance.”

This frank observation cuts to the heart of one of accounting’s toughest leadership challenges—dealing with talented but toxic employees. It’s just one of many practical insights shared during this episode of the Earmark Podcast, recorded live in Atlanta during the Advisory Amplified tour.

Host Blake Oliver sits down with Lisa Gilreath and Valerie Heckman, Accountant Community Manager at OnPay, to explore what empathetic leadership really looks like in accounting firms. Their conversation goes well beyond feel-good management theories to address the real challenges firms face when deadlines hit and pressure mounts.

Why Empathy Makes Business Sense

When Blake asks Lisa why firms shouldn’t burn out their people, her answer is refreshingly honest: “They’re really hard to replace right now.”

This practical reality drives home why empathetic leadership isn’t just nice to have—it’s essential for survival in today’s talent market. Lisa explains that with staffing shortages and people tired of 60-80 hour work weeks, firms have to build healthier workplaces to succeed.

But deadlines don’t disappear. Tax seasons still come. Clients still have needs. The key is finding ways to meet those demands without destroying your team in the process.

Building Breathing Room Into Your Firm

Traditional firms plan for 100% utilization, assuming everyone will be productive every single day. Lisa takes a different approach at Acuity, planning for 75-80% capacity instead.

“You can’t run the people to the absolute end and expect not to be in a crisis situation if somebody has an issue,” she explains. This isn’t about accepting lower productivity. It’s about building resilience into your workflows.

Personal crises illustrate why this matters. “Personal crises, tragedy or challenges never check your calendar to see if you have time to deal with them,” Lisa notes. Over 20 years at Acuity, she’s seen it all—employees who unexpectedly passed away, team members losing spouses, medical emergencies that required immediate attention.

These aren’t rare events. They’re the reality of managing people over time. The question is whether your firm can handle them without falling apart.

Lisa recommends having your “phone a friend on speed dial”—an HR expert or advisor who can provide objective guidance when emotions run high. Small firms especially struggle when close relationships make it hard to separate business needs from personal loyalty.

How Systems Create Space for Humanity

Many firms see standardization as rigid and impersonal. Lisa flips this completely, showing how standard processes actually enable empathy.

“If you do have a standard scope of services for your transactional stuff, you can plug and play people,” she explains. “Paying bills is paying bills. Doing payroll is doing payroll. It’s just a matter of where you get that source data.”

When every client engagement follows similar patterns, any qualified team member can step in during an emergency. This protects both the employee who needs support and the client who needs continuity.

Acuity spreads work throughout the year using recurring CAS engagements rather than accepting the traditional feast-or-famine cycle. “We’re focused on being proactive in those interactions all year long,” Lisa says. This creates predictable workflows that allow for coverage when life happens.

The approach helps team members too. Lisa tells her people: “Build our workflows and build our communication patterns so that if you need to leave unexpectedly, we’ve got your back. Help us help you.”

Reading the Warning Signs

Technology provides new ways to spot problems before they become crises. But Lisa doesn’t just watch productivity metrics. She pays attention to communication patterns.

“I’m noticing when people are no longer engaging in Slack conversations at the same pace that they once were,” she explains. “They’re not showing up in meetings and being as talkative as they once were.”

These changes signal that something’s wrong before performance completely deteriorates. A normally responsive team member whose emails slow down. A strong performer whose deliverables lag. These whispers often matter more than what people explicitly say.

Valerie adds another important metric: PTO usage. “If people aren’t using it, that’s a sign,” she notes. “Are they afraid to use it? Do they feel like if they use it, they’re not contributing enough to the team?”

Her own mother exemplifies this problem, going years without taking vacation because she worried about work piling up. “She would never, ever take a day that payroll needed to be run or the day after in case there were mistakes,” Valerie recalls.

The flip side matters too. Excessive PTO usage might signal disengagement or job hunting. These patterns hide in payroll data most firms already collect but rarely analyze for team health insights.

The Toxic High Performer Problem

Every firm faces this dilemma eventually: what do you do with someone who delivers great results but poisons team culture?

“Toxic workers will take you down,” Lisa states plainly. While star performers deliver individually, the rest of the team suffers. The math is clear—protecting one toxic high performer often means losing multiple good employees.

But Lisa doesn’t jump straight to termination. “I start from a place of curiosity,” she says. “How did we get here? What’s going on with them?”

Sometimes it’s a personal crisis. Sometimes they don’t understand expectations. Sometimes they genuinely don’t realize they need to collaborate. Starting with curiosity creates space for course correction.

The same principle applies to clients. When Blake asks about unreasonable client demands on her team, Lisa’s response is swift: “They’re probably not going to be a client for much longer.”

Acuity holds both team members and clients to their values. “This is how we intend to operate,” Lisa explains. They regularly review their client base to ensure alignment, not just to cull unprofitable work but to protect team wellbeing.

Navigating Industry Change With Compassion

The pace of change creates another empathy challenge. Many experienced accountants built careers on consistency and process. Now they’re asked to develop entirely new skills.

“We liked that about them for a really long time—that they followed the process and they didn’t question the process,” Lisa observes. “Now we’re asking them to talk to clients, and they’ve never had to talk to clients. They just had to fill out the form.”

With AI transforming the profession, these changes feel overwhelming to some team members. The empathetic response isn’t to abandon these people but to “bring those people along at their pace as well as the pace of the industry.”

This is where hiring for adaptability becomes crucial. Lisa looks to new graduates who see AI as normal, not threatening. “They’re unafraid. They will just try anything,” she says. These digital natives may help bridge the gap for more experienced team members struggling with change.

Taking Action This Week

Valerie offers practical advice for leaders wanting to be more empathetic: pause.

“Taking that time when something happens, when there’s an experience with a worker or team dynamic and saying, okay, we’re going to sleep on it,” she suggests. This fights the instinct to immediately jump in and solve problems.

Pausing allows you to ask better questions rather than make assumptions. It could be personal challenges, professional struggles, or something else entirely. Without that pause, you might treat symptoms instead of root causes.

Lisa adds another suggestion: engage your team in discussing a problem and just listen. “They will often lead with things that are coming from a place of fear or concern,” she notes. Understanding these underlying worries helps you address real issues, not just surface problems.

Your Role as an Advocate

Perhaps the most important mindset shift involves how leaders see their role. “I am their number one advocate,” Lisa says about her team. “My role is not just to drive them to production, it’s really to advocate for their needs.”

This means creating multiple channels for support, recognizing not everyone feels comfortable approaching their direct supervisor. “If I’m not the person that you can reach out to, I promise you, I have paths for you to go raise your concern,” Lisa tells her team.

The business case remains clear throughout the conversation. In today’s environment where good people are “really hard to replace,” protecting team culture isn’t charity—it’s strategy. Firms that recognize their people as “the engine” and act accordingly will outlast those clinging to the burnout model.

Listen to the full episode to hear more practical strategies for implementing these changes in your firm. Lisa and Valerie share specific tips on creating buddy systems for coverage, working with HR consultants, and building workflows that respect both deadlines and humanity. Their insights offer a realistic path forward for firms ready to lead with empathy while maintaining business success.