The Last Expert Standing
SOXRISKCOMPLIANCEBUSINESSINTERNAL AUDIT
300,000 accountants left. The ones who stayed are carrying everyone else's risk.
The Numbers
Over 300,000 accountants and auditors left their positions in the past three years. The profession's workforce has shrunk 17% since 2020. CPA exam participation hit its lowest level since 2006. The number of candidates sitting for the exam has declined 34% since 2016.
Robert Half surveyed finance and accounting leaders and found 86% have experienced challenges hiring and retaining accountants. Thirty percent say the shortage has significantly increased compliance risks. Multiple public companies have cited turnover in finance and accounting functions as a root cause, not a contributing factor, the root cause, of control failures.
The pipeline isn't recovering. Accounting graduation rates have declined 20% since 2010. The profession is projected to face qualified-professional shortfalls through at least 2029.
Now for the editorializing.
This Isn't a Pipeline Problem
Experienced people didn't leave because accounting has a bad reputation. They left because the reward structure stopped matching the risk structure.
The math of a mid-career accounting professional: I have 10+ years of experience, I'm expected to understand AI, cybersecurity, ESG, crypto, and three new accounting standards simultaneously. The shareholders don't care if I get outsourced to India. My comp has barely kept pace with inflation while finance colleagues in FP&A make significantly more for work that doesn't require a CPA exam.
That's a value proposition problem. And scholarships don't fix value proposition problems. The PCAOB runs a scholarship program: $15,000 per student, 685 scholarships in 2025. That's $10.3 million to address a 300,000-person exodus. Against a backdrop where a finance career at a tech company starts at six figures not to mention equity. I appreciate the effort. I do. But let's be honest about what we're working with.
What Leaves With the Experts
When experienced accounting professionals exit, what goes with them isn't just years of service. It's the contextual judgment no checklist captures. The tribal knowledge doesn't get documented. It doesn't transfer to the offshore team doing the work now. It doesn't get captured in the GRC platform's workflow automation. It walks out the door with the person.
Robert Half's data is explicit: accountant turnover creates difficulty maintaining segregation of duties, keeping pace with reporting requirements, and responding to audit findings. These aren't soft concerns. Segregation of duties failures lead to material weaknesses. Material weaknesses lead to restatements. Restatements lead to regulatory scrutiny and shareholder lawsuits.
The 'AI Will Fix It' Problem
You need experienced people to design, govern, and validate the AI tools that will replace junior work. You need judgment to know what the AI is missing. You need professional skepticism to question whether the anomaly the algorithm flagged is actually anomalous or a systematic misclassification.
In the short term, AI is adding complexity to the control environment faster than it's removing burden. Every AI agent touching financial data is a new control risk that needs to be governed, tested, and documented. Before you get efficiency, you get more audit scope. And you need experienced people to assess the risk of tools that didn't exist when they got their license.
What the C-Suite Should Actually Do
Document the risk explicitly. If your audit function is operating below required staffing levels, say so in writing to the audit committee. Don't carry the water silently.
Prioritize mercilessly. A talent-constrained function that tries to cover the same risk universe as a fully staffed one will do everything poorly. Find the 20% of your control environment representing 80% of actual risk. Staff that well.
Protect the experienced people you have. The instinct in a cost-cutting environment is to let senior people go. But losing your last three professionals with 15+ years of experience is not a budget win. It's a time bomb.
The profession's answer to the talent crisis has involved lowering exam barriers, modest salary bumps, and marketing campaigns. None of these are wrong. But you can't simultaneously treat audit as overhead and expect the best people to choose it. The ship that's safe in harbor isn't useful.
These are the opinions of the editors of Internal Audit Next and/or the writer who authored this article. Any use of this copyrighted material without permission of Internal Audit Next - including training for AI Models - is prohibited. Copyright 2026.