Careers
SubscribeNon-Affiliated Firms Inspection Data
These graphs reflect data included in the public portion of the inspection reports of the eight registered non-affiliated U.S. firms that were annually inspected in 2022: Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP (Baker Tilly); B F Borgers CPA PC (B F Borgers); Cohen & Company, Ltd. (Cohen); Crowe LLP (Crowe); Marcum LLP (Marcum); Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams); RSM US LLP (RSM); and WithumSmith+Brown, PC (Withum).
Note: Three of these eight firms (Baker Tilly, B F Borgers, and Withum) were not inspected in 2020, and, as such, are not included in the 2020 results presented in the graphs below.
The inspection data below is readily ascertainable from the public portion of the inspection report, but the data should be understood in light of contextualizing information provided with each report, including (1) It relates only to the audits selected for review, which does not constitute a representative sample of the firm’s total population of issuer audits, and only to the particular portions of the issuer audits reviewed; (2) For various reasons, inspection results are not necessarily comparable over time or among firms; (3) Inspection results are not an assessment of all of the firm’s audit work nor of all of the audit procedures performed for the audits reviewed; and (4) Inspection reports are not intended to serve as overall rating tools.
2022 Inspection Results
Audits Selected for Review
Audits Selected for Review by Audit Type
We select both integrated audits of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) and audits of financial statement only.
Audits Selected for Review by Selection Method
We use a combination of risk-based and random methods to select issuer audits for review. In addition, we utilize a target team of inspectors to perform inspection procedures in areas of current risk and emerging topics. More information on the focus of the target team procedures in each year can be found in the relevant inspection report. Because our inspection process evolves over time, it can, and often does, focus on a different mix of issuer audits and audit areas from year to year and firm to firm.
An audit deficiency is cited and described in Part I.A of an inspection report if it is of such significance that we believe the firm, at the time it issued its audit report(s), had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion(s) on the issuer’s financial statements and/or ICFR.
Part I.A Deficiency Rate
Percentage of issuer audits reviewed that have at least one deficiency in Part I.A of the inspection report.
Part I.A Deficiency Rate by Selection Method
Percentage of issuer audits reviewed, by selection method, that have at least one Part I.A deficiency in the inspection report for all six firms.
Audits Affected by the Deficiencies Identified in Part I.A
Number of issuer audits in Part I.A by type of opinion that was affected by the identified deficiency(ies).Three firms, Baker Tilly, B F Borgers and Withum only have two years of results included in the 2020-2022 tab as they were not inspected in 2020.
Classification of Audits Reviewed
These are the audit areas we have selected most frequently for review across all six firms and the number of issuer audits by focus area with and without Part I.A deficiencies. For the issuer audits selected for review, we selected these areas because they were generally significant to the issuer’s financial statements, may have included complex issues for auditors, and/or involved complex judgments in (1) estimating and auditing the reported value of related accounts and disclosures and (2) implementing and auditing the related controls.
Auditing Standards With Frequent Part I.A Deficiencies by
Audit Area
This graph reflects the auditing standards most frequently referenced in Part I.A by audit area for each inspection year.
This graph depicts the number of issuer audits reviewed, by each industry with and without Part I.A deficiencies for all six firms. We select issuer audits for review in sectors and specific industries experiencing particularly significant disruptions or financial reporting risks.
Inspection Results by Issuer Revenue
This graph depicts the number of issuer audits reviewed, by the issuer’s revenue range, with and without Part I.A deficiencies for all six firms.
The percentage in this graph represents the number of issuer audits reviewed for that tenure range with at least one Part I.A deficiency divided by total issuer audits reviewed for that tenure range. This information is for all six firms.
Part I.A Deficiencies by the Engagement Partner's Tenure With the Issuer
The percentage in this graph represents the number of issuer audits reviewed for that partner tenure with at least one Part I.A deficiency divided by total issuer audits reviewed for that partner tenure. This information is for all six firms.
This graph depicts the number of issuer audits identified for each firm by Part I.B deficiency type. Part I. B deficiencies are certain deficiencies that relate to instances of non-compliance with PCAOB standards or rules other than those where the firm had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinions. Three firms, Baker Tilly, B F Borgers and Withum only have two years of results included in the 2020-2022 tab as they were not inspected in 2020.