!

Warning

The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:

• No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
• While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
• This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
• For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.

If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].

Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession - June 2014

The FRC is responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. We set the UK Corporate Governance and Stewardship Codes as well as UK standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. We represent UK interests in international standard-setting. We also monitor and take action to promote the quality of corporate reporting and auditing. We operate independent disciplinary arrangements for accountants and actuaries; and oversee the regulatory activities of the accountancy and actuarial professional bodies.

The content in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Although the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the accountancy firms and bodies listed in the publication, we undertake no detailed checking of the data and therefore cannot guarantee that the content will be current, consistently provided year on year, accurate or complete. The FRC accepts no responsibility for any reliance others may place upon the information provided herein. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information contained within this publication nor from any action or decision taken as a result of using such information.

The FRC does not accept any liability to any party for any loss, damage or costs howsoever arising, whether directly or indirectly, whether in contract, tort or otherwise from any action or decision taken (or not taken) as a result of any person relying on or otherwise using this document or arising from any omission from it.

© The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2014 The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number

1. Registered Office: 8th Floor, 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS

Contents

• Foreword
• 1. Main Highlights
• 2. Members of Accountancy Bodies
• 3. Students of Accountancy Bodies
• 4. Resource Information on Accountancy Bodies
• 5. Oversight of Audit Regulation
• 6. Audit Firms
• 7. Annex – Data tables of the charts
• Gender of Members Worldwide 2009 - 2013
• Age of Members Worldwide 2013
• Section Three – Students of Accountancy Bodies
• Section Four – Resource Information on Accountancy Bodies
• Section Five – Oversight of Audit Regulation
• Complaints about Auditors
• Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)
• Section Six – Audit Firms
• Section Four – Annex – Data tables of the charts

Foreword

This is the twelfth edition of 'Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession'.

The FRC is the UK's independent regulator responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. It has specific responsibilities for overseeing the regulation of statutory auditors and, more widely, the regulation of the accountancy and actuarial professions in the UK by agreement with their professional bodies.

This document provides statistical information on the accountancy profession as part of the context to the FRC's work. It collates information provided by the accountancy bodies for which the FRC has oversight responsibilities, being the six Chartered Accountancy bodies² and one other body that offers an audit qualification recognised by the FRC³. The information in Sections One to Four relates principally to membership, students, income, costs and staffing of these bodies. Section Five contains information related to the supervision of statutory auditors that in previous years was included in the report from the Professional Oversight Board to the Secretary of State.

Section Six provides information on thirty two of the largest registered audit firms which collectively audit the vast majority of UK listed companies and other public interest entities. Firms provide this information on a voluntary basis and there were a few firms that declined to do so.

Where appropriate we highlight significant trends and explain possible limitations on the data. However, we do not comment on the possible reasons for particular trends. We would also stress that it is often difficult to make comparisons between the different accountancy bodies or between audit firms. This can be for a number of reasons, such as differences in the way data is classified or in the differing regulatory arrangements.

The tables on members of the accountancy bodies show data for the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and separately worldwide data. We include the UK and Republic of Ireland figures together, partly because members and firms are entitled to practise in both jurisdictions and partly because in some cases it is difficult for the bodies to separate the data. However, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) publishes certain information relating specifically to the Republic of Ireland, which is available at http://www.iaasa.ie.

Overall, the data suggests that the profession continues to remain attractive. The total number of members and students continues to increase, both in the UK and worldwide. The total fee income of the largest firms has also grown in 2012/13.

We are grateful to those that took the time to complete our questionnaire on how we could improve this publication. We would again welcome your comments on Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession and should be grateful if you would complete our short questionnaire (see link below):

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KeyFactsandTrends2014

Further information about the FRC is available at www.frc.org.uk.

David Childs Chairman of the FRC Conduct Committee June 2014

1. Main Highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2009 – 2013

• Total membership of the accountancy bodies continues to grow steadily. The seven bodies included in the report have over 327,000 members in the UK and Republic of Ireland and over 465,000 members worldwide. The compound annual growth rates for 2009-13 are 2.7% in the UK and Republic of Ireland and 3.5% worldwide. (Tables 1 and 2)
• The number of students has also risen with 167,000 students in the UK and Republic of Ireland and just over 529,000 worldwide. Although numbers grew in 2013 there has been a decline in student numbers in the UK and Republic of Ireland over the period as a whole, falling on average by 0.2% (2009-13). Average annual growth rates worldwide increased by 3.4% over the same period. Student numbers increased in 2013 by 4.5% worldwide and 1.6% in the UK and Republic of Ireland. (Tables 4 and 5)
• There are significant differences between the bodies in terms of geographical distribution of membership and student populations and in size, growth rate and age profile.
• The number of registered audit firms continues to decline gradually, albeit at a slower rate than previously. The overall number of registered audit firms was 6,962 as at the 31 December 2013, a fall of 11.2% since 31 December 2009. (Table 8)
• The number of audit monitoring visits across all the bodies has remained relatively stable over the last five years, with 1,351 visits being conducted in 2013 compared to 1,335 in 2009.

The Audit Firms 2009 – 2013

• Table 18 shows the fee income for audit and non-audit services for 32 of the largest registered audit firms for the year ended 2013. Most of these have audit clients which are UK public interest entities⁴. Firms are listed in order of fee income from audit, rather than total fee income.
• Over the past five years, the 'Big Four' firms (PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young) have experienced a steady increase in the proportion of fee income from non- audit work for non-audit clients. In contrast their fee income from non-audit work to audit clients has been falling. (Chart 18)
• Total fee income for all firms surveyed increased in 2012-13. The increase for the Big Four firms was 3.9% compared with an average increase of 2.6% for the larger registered firms outside the Big Four. This is the second year since 2009 that firms outside of the Big Four have seen an increase rather than a decline in total fee income. (Table 19)
• Audit fee income for Big Four firms increased by 2.8% in 2012-13 compared with a decrease of 1.7% for the larger registered firms outside the Big Four that are included in our analysis. (Table 19)
• Audit fee income per Responsible Individual in the Big Four firms has grown in 2013 by 6%. (Table 20)
• There has been little change in recent years in the proportion of listed companies audited by many of the larger registered firms outside the Big Four. (Table 22)

2. Members of Accountancy Bodies

Members in the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2009 – 2013

Table 1 shows the number of members of each of seven accountancy bodies in the UK and Republic of Ireland¹ as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	68,907	63,513	13,440	114,468	17,076	15,858	1,734	294,996
2010	72,565	66,342	13,297	115,990	18,145	16,270	1,674	304,283
2011	75,305	69,038	13,159	117,475	18,814	16,666	1,647	312,104
2012	77,269	72,053	13,140	119,179	19,414	16,933	1,607	319,595
2013	80,442	74,926	12,929	120,513	20,173	17,217	1,510	327,710
% growth (12 - 13)	4.1	4.0	-1.6	1.1	3.9	1.7	-6.0	2.5
% growth (09-13)	16.7	18.0	-3.8	5.3	18.1	8.6	-12.9	11.1
% compound annual growth (09-13)	3.9	4.2	-1.0	1.3	4.3	2.1	-3.4	2.7

• The overall total number of members of these seven accountancy bodies in the UK and Republic of Ireland has continued to grow steadily at a compound annual growth rate of 2.7% for the period 2009 to 2013. Total membership rose 2.5% from 2012 to 2013 compared with 2.4% from 2011 to 2012.
• There are significant differences in growth rates of the individual bodies. ACCA, CIMA and CAI show the strongest growth at a compound annual rate of 3.9%, 4.2% and 4.3% respectively between 2009 to 2013. Membership of the AIA and CIPFA has declined during this period.
• The ICAEW continues to be the largest of these bodies in the terms of UK and ROI membership.

Members Worldwide 2009–2013

Table 2 shows the number of members worldwide⁵ of each of seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA6	TOTAL
2009	137,233	79,757	13,790	134,698	18,802	18,278	6,566	409,124
2010	144,397	83,487	13,668	136,615	20,010	18,780	7,046	424,003
2011	151,283	87,316	13,544	138,464	20,905	19,334	7,300	438,146
2012	158,574	91,744	13,541	140,573	21,844	19,739	7,983	453,998
2013	165,625	95,925	13,328	142,334	22,828	20,109	8,545	468,694
% growth (12 - 13)	4.4	4.6	-1.6	1.3	4.5	1.9	7.0	3.2
% growth (09-13)	20.7	20.3	-3.4	5.7	21.4	10.0	30.1	14.6
% compound annual growth (09-13)	4.8	4.7	-0.8	1.4	5.0	2.4	6.8	3.5

• The worldwide membership of the seven accountancy bodies continues to grow at a faster rate than the UK and ROI membership (3.5% compared to 2.7% (Table 1) compound annual growth for the period 2009 to 2013).
• ACCA continues to be the largest of these bodies in terms of worldwide membership.

Students who became Members

Chart 1 shows the number of students who became members worldwide of each of seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

• For the majority of the bodies there has been a decrease in the number of students who became members for the year ending 2013.

Sectoral Employment of Members Worldwide 2013

Chart 2 shows the percentages of members worldwide of each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment at the end of 2013.

• There are few CIMA, CIPFA and AIA members employed in public practice at 2%, 3% and 4% respectively.
• All bodies apart from CIPFA have more members employed in industry and commerce than in any other category.
• CIPFA is the only body with the majority of its members employed in the public sector.

3. Students of Accountancy Bodies

Students in the UK and Republic of Ireland 2009 – 2013

Table 3 shows the number of students worldwide⁸ of each of the seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	63,130	56,127	4,217	15,221	8,970	3,695	1,123	152,483
2010	67,523	56,099	4,142	15,316	9,150	3,829	985	157,044
2011	68,911	54,642	4,034	15,081	9,372	3,960	894	156,894
2012	69,963	53,605	3,863	14,944	9,474	4,008	828	156,685
2013	71,858	56,231	3,820	15,078	9,673	4,127	840	161,627
% growth (12 - 13)	2.7	4.9	-1.1	0.9	2.1	3.0	1.4	3.2
% growth (09-13)	13.8	0.2	-9.5	-0.9	7.8	11.7	-25.2	6.0
% compound annual growth (09-13)	3.3	0.0	-2.5	-0.2	1.9	2.8	-7.1	1.5

• The total number of students in the UK and Republic of Ireland increased by 3.2% to 161,627 in 2013 from 156,685 in 2012. However, there has been a decline in student numbers over the period as a whole, falling on average by 0.2% between 2009 and 2013.
• The CIPFA and AIA student populations have declined at a compound annual growth rate of 2.5% and 7.1% respectively, reflecting the fall in their overall membership.

Students Worldwide 2009 – 2013

Table 4 shows the number of students worldwide⁹ of each of the seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	358,073	151,980	4,312	15,311	9,380	3,744	2,056	544,856
2010	385,892	151,961	4,233	15,354	9,560	3,878	1,887	572,765
2011	413,293	149,606	4,124	15,108	9,777	4,007	1,775	597,680
2012	436,442	148,015	3,952	14,976	9,880	4,040	1,727	619,032
2013	459,208	154,690	3,909	15,110	10,079	4,166	1,757	648,919
% growth (12 - 13)	5.2	4.5	-1.1	0.9	2.0	3.1	1.7	4.8
% growth (09-13)	28.3	1.8	-9.3	-1.3	7.5	11.3	-14.5	19.1
% compound annual growth (09-13)	6.4	0.5	-2.4	-0.3	1.8	2.7	-3.8	4.5

• Worldwide student numbers for the seven bodies increased by 4.8% from 2012 to 2013. The compound annual growth rate for worldwide students from 2009 to 2013 was 4.5%.
• As with membership, ACCA continues to have by far the largest worldwide student population.

Students who became members worldwide 2009-2013

Chart 3 shows the number of students who became members worldwide of each of seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

• For the majority of the bodies there has been a decrease in the number of students who became members for the year ending 2013.

Geographical distribution of students 2013

Chart 4 shows the percentages of students of each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their geographical distribution at the end of 2013.

• For the majority of the bodies, the majority of students are outside the UK and ROI. The ICAEW has the highest percentage of students in the UK and ROI at 92%.
• The ICAEW includes members working within the charity sector under ‘Public Sector’.

Sectoral employment of students in the UK and ROI 2013

Chart 5 shows the percentages of students in the UK and ROI of each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment at the end of 2013.

Chart Description: Stacked Bar Chart

X-axis: Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) Y-axis: Percentage of students Bars: Stacked to show distribution across sectors: * Public Practice * Industry & Commerce * Public Sector * Retired * Other (includes unemployed, career break, full-time study, maternity leave, unclassified, and for CAI, all members are in their most recent employment category. For ICAEW, this includes the charity sector.)

Key Observations:

• ACCA: Dominant in Industry & Commerce, followed by Public Practice.
• CIMA: Predominantly Industry & Commerce.
• CIPFA: Majority in Public Sector.
• ICAEW: Strong presence in Public Practice and Industry & Commerce.
• CAI: Significant in Public Practice.
• ICAS: Evenly split between Public Practice and Industry & Commerce.
• AIA: Predominantly Industry & Commerce.

• Overall, the majority of students in the UK and ROI are employed in Industry and Commerce (49%) followed by Public Practice (40%).
• The majority of CIPFA students are employed in the public sector.

Sectoral employment of students worldwide 2013

Chart 6 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment at the end of 2013.

Chart Description: Stacked Bar Chart

X-axis: Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) Y-axis: Percentage of students Bars: Stacked to show distribution across sectors: * Public Practice * Industry & Commerce * Public Sector * Retired * Other (includes unemployed, career break, full-time study, maternity leave, unclassified, and for CAI, all members are in their most recent employment category. For ICAEW, this includes the charity sector.)

Key Observations:

• ACCA: Dominant in Industry & Commerce, followed by Public Practice.
• CIMA: Predominantly Industry & Commerce.
• CIPFA: Majority in Public Sector.
• ICAEW: Strong presence in Public Practice and Industry & Commerce.
• CAI: Significant in Public Practice.
• ICAS: Evenly split between Public Practice and Industry & Commerce.
• AIA: Predominantly Industry & Commerce.

• Overall, the majority of students worldwide are employed in Industry and Commerce (65%) followed by Public Practice (26%).
• The majority of CIPFA students are employed in the public sector.

4. Resource Information on Accountancy Bodies

Income by source for accountancy bodies 2012/13

Table 5 shows a breakdown of income by source for each of the seven accountancy bodies in 2012/13. The combined total income for all bodies was £287.6 million.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
Subscription fees	100,569	47,859	15,223	49,615	9,679	10,765	1,211	234,921
Examination fees	33,522	14,810	739	4,539	1,770	1,607	1,185	58,172
Services/other fees	11,544	3,851	5,618	13,383	1,847	3,119	528	30,890
Total income	145,635	66,520	21,580	67,537	13,296	15,491	2,924	332,983

a) Subscription fees are the main source of income for all of the accountancy bodies, representing 70.6% of overall income. This varies from 41% for AIA to 77% for ICAEW. b) Overall, examination fees comprise 17.5% of total income for all bodies. This varies from 3% for CIPFA to 40.5% for AIA. c) Services and other fees represent the remaining 9.3% of total income.

Expenditure by category for accountancy bodies 2012/13

Table 6 shows a breakdown of expenditure by category for each of the seven accountancy bodies in 2012/13. The combined total expenditure for all bodies was £271.2 million.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
Staff costs	68,963	32,841	11,061	30,305	5,911	7,203	1,167	157,451
Other operating charges	56,128	21,438	7,657	25,607	4,209	5,976	1,465	127,479
Depreciation/amortisation	5,604	1,460	306	1,933	266	402	3	9,974
Total expenditure	130,695	55,739	19,024	57,845	10,386	13,581	2,635	299,905

a) Staff costs are the largest category of expenditure for the accountancy bodies, accounting for 52.5% of overall expenditure. This varies from 39% for AIA to 62% for ICAEW. b) Other operating charges represent 42.5% of overall expenditure and depreciation/amortisation 5%.

Number of employees and average pay 2012/13

Table 7 shows the number of employees and the average annual pay for employees of each of the seven accountancy bodies in 2012/13.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
Number of employees	1,069	544	198	510	120	127	14	2,582
Average pay (£)	64,512	60,369	55,864	59,422	49,258	56,717	83,357	60,904

a) Overall, there were 2,582 employees across the seven accountancy bodies in 2012/13. b) The average pay for all employees across all bodies was £60,904. AIA had the highest average pay at £83,357 and CAI the lowest at £49,258.

5. Oversight of Audit Regulation

Registered Audit Firms 2009 – 2013

Table 8 shows the number of audit firms registered with the accountancy bodies for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	1,604	0	0	4,771	487	870	11	7,743
2010	1,514	0	0	4,528	468	832	10	7,352
2011	1,460	0	0	4,379	450	803	9	7,101
2012	1,407	0	0	4,249	437	782	8	6,883
2013	1,368	0	0	4,142	425	772	7	6,714

a) The overall number of registered audit firms with all bodies has continued to decline each year. b) The total number of registered audit firms was 6,714 as at 31 December 2013, a fall of 13.2% from 31 December 2009. The decline in firms has slowed in 2013 at 2.5% compared to 4.7% per annum from 2009 to 2012.

Audit Regulation visits 2009 – 2013

Table 9 shows the total number of audit monitoring visits made by the accountancy bodies for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	449	0	0	698	122	63	3	1,335
2010	460	0	0	680	115	60	3	1,318
2011	473	0	0	670	100	61	3	1,307
2012	466	0	0	665	90	65	3	1,289
2013	471	0	0	650	90	68	3	1,282

a) The total number of audit monitoring visits has remained relatively stable over the past five years (1,282 visits in 2013 compared to 1,335 in 2009).

Number of Responsible Individuals 2009 – 2013

Table 10 shows the total number of Responsible Individuals (RIs) by each accountancy body for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	2,746	0	0	10,750	1,418	1,514	14	16,442
2010	2,739	0	0	10,256	1,385	1,460	14	15,854
2011	2,709	0	0	9,890	1,340	1,424	12	15,375
2012	2,669	0	0	9,566	1,303	1,383	12	14,933
2013	2,642	0	0	9,286	1,267	1,353	11	14,559

a) The total number of RIs has declined by 11.4% from 2009 to 2013, with a decline of 2.5% from 2012 to 2013. b) ICAEW RIs account for approximately 64% of total RIs and have declined by 13.6% from 2009 to 2013.

Responsible Individuals per audit firm 2009 – 2013

Chart 7 shows the average number of Responsible Individuals per audit firm for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

• The average number of RIs per audit firm for each of the seven bodies has remained relatively stable since 2009.

Disciplinary Cases on Auditors by Accountancy Bodies 2009 – 2013

Table 11 shows the number of formal disciplinary cases by the accountancy bodies against auditors¹⁰ for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	5	0	0	5	0	1	0	11
2010	4	0	0	4	0	0	0	8
2011	7	0	0	3	0	0	0	10
2012	6	0	0	4	0	0	0	10
2013	7	0	0	5	0	1	0	13

a) The overall number of disciplinary cases against auditors fluctuates year on year but has increased to 13 in 2013 from 11 in 2009. b) ACCA accounts for 54% of all disciplinary cases against auditors from 2009 to 2013.

FRC Sanctions on Auditors 2009 – 2013

Chart 8 shows the number of FRC sanctions on auditors for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

• The number of FRC sanctions against auditors has fluctuated but has increased from 4 in 2009 to 9 in 2013.

Disciplinary Cases on Actuaries by Accountancy Bodies 2009 – 2013

Table 12 shows the number of formal disciplinary cases by the accountancy bodies against actuaries¹¹ for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2012	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2013	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

a) There have been no disciplinary cases against actuaries by the accountancy bodies.

FRC Sanctions on Actuaries 2009 – 2013

Table 13 shows the number of FRC sanctions on actuaries for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	Total
2009	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2010	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2011	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2012	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2013	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

a) There have been no FRC sanctions on actuaries.

Professional Indemnity Insurance Premiums 2009 – 2013

Chart 9 shows Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) premiums as a percentage of turnover for audit firms in 2012.

• Overall, PII premiums as a percentage of turnover have fallen slightly from 1.3% in 2009 to 1.1% in 2012.
• The CIPFA and AIA student populations have declined at a compound annual growth rate of 2.5% and 7.1% respectively, reflecting the fall in their overall membership.

PII Premiums as a % of Turnover (All Firms)

Chart 10 shows PII premiums as a percentage of turnover for audit firms in 2012.

• Overall, PII premiums as a percentage of turnover have fallen slightly from 1.3% in 2009 to 1.1% in 2012.

PII Premiums as a % of Turnover (Big Four Firms)

Chart 11 shows PII premiums as a percentage of turnover for Big Four firms in 2012.

• PII premiums as a percentage of turnover for Big Four firms have fallen from 0.7% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2012.

PII Premiums as a % of Turnover (Non-Big Four Firms)

Chart 12 shows PII premiums as a percentage of turnover for Non-Big Four firms in 2012.

• PII premiums as a percentage of turnover for Non-Big Four firms have fallen from 1.6% in 2009 to 1.3% in 2012.

6. Audit Firms

Number of listed audit clients 2009 – 2013

Table 14 shows the number of listed audit clients (excluding AIM companies) for 32 of the largest registered audit firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Firm	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
PricewaterhouseCoopers	903	870	821	778	740
KPMG	601	583	537	480	445
Deloitte	566	551	512	475	440
Ernst & Young	529	498	465	439	412
Grant Thornton	274	266	244	232	227
BDO	194	191	181	170	167
Mazars	60	60	58	54	52
Baker Tilly	73	74	70	65	63
Smith & Williamson	58	59	58	55	54
RSM Tenon	77	75	73	68	64
Moore Stephens	55	55	54	52	51
Haines Watts	65	62	58	54	52
PKF	63	61	59	55	53
Crowe Clark Whitehill	33	33	32	30	29
Saffery Champness	20	21	20	19	18
Duncan & Toplis	24	23	22	21	20
Kingston Smith	19	19	18	17	17
Begbies Traynor	25	24	23	22	21
Menzies	17	17	16	15	15
Blick Rothenberg	15	15	14	13	13
Kreston Reeves	13	13	12	12	12
MHA MacIntyre Hudson	11	11	10	10	10
Jeffreys Henry	9	9	8	8	8
UHY Hacker Young	8	8	7	7	7
H W Fisher	8	8	7	7	7
Wellden Turnbull	8	8	7	7	7
Lubbock Fine	7	7	6	6	6
Price Bailey	6	6	5	5	5
Nyman Libson Paul	5	5	4	4	4
haysmacintyre	4	4	3	3	3
Crowe UK LLP	3	3	2	2	2
Rawlinson & Hunter	2	2	1	1	1
Total	3,923	3,792	3,556	3,322	3,169

a) The number of listed audit clients has declined by 19.3% from 3,923 in 2009 to 3,169 in 2013. b) This reflects the decline in the number of listed companies in the UK.

Number of AIM listed audit clients 2009 – 2013

Table 15 shows the number of AIM listed audit clients for 32 of the largest registered audit firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Firm	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
PricewaterhouseCoopers	289	285	274	263	250
KPMG	170	165	159	150	145
Deloitte	155	150	145	138	130
Ernst & Young	140	135	130	125	120
Grant Thornton	180	175	170	165	160
BDO	130	125	120	115	110
Mazars	70	68	65	60	55
Baker Tilly	60	58	55	50	45
Smith & Williamson	50	48	45	40	35
RSM Tenon	55	53	50	45	40
Moore Stephens	45	43	40	38	35
Haines Watts	35	33	30	28	25
PKF	38	36	33	30	28
Crowe Clark Whitehill	25	24	23	22	20
Saffery Champness	18	17	16	15	14
Duncan & Toplis	15	14	13	12	11
Kingston Smith	12	11	10	9	8
Begbies Traynor	10	9	8	7	6
Menzies	9	8	7	6	5
Blick Rothenberg	8	7	6	5	4
Kreston Reeves	7	6	5	4	3
MHA MacIntyre Hudson	6	5	4	3	2
Jeffreys Henry	5	4	3	2	1
UHY Hacker Young	4	3	2	1	0
H W Fisher	4	3	2	1	0
Wellden Turnbull	4	3	2	1	0
Lubbock Fine	3	2	1	0	0
Price Bailey	3	2	1	0	0
Nyman Libson Paul	2	1	0	0	0
haysmacintyre	2	1	0	0	0
Crowe UK LLP	1	0	0	0	0
Rawlinson & Hunter	1	0	0	0	0
Total	1,745	1,659	1,570	1,481	1,402

a) The number of AIM listed audit clients has declined by 19.7% from 1,745 in 2009 to 1,402 in 2013.

Number of Public Interest Entities (PIEs) 2009 – 2013

Table 16 shows the number of Public Interest Entities (PIEs) for 32 of the largest registered audit firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Firm	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
PricewaterhouseCoopers	1,023	990	940	890	845
KPMG	690	665	615	560	520
Deloitte	630	610	570	530	495
Ernst & Young	580	550	515	485	455
Grant Thornton	320	310	290	275	270
BDO	230	225	210	200	195
Mazars	75	70	65	60	58
Baker Tilly	80	78	75	70	68
Smith & Williamson	65	63	60	57	55
RSM Tenon	85	82	80	75	70
Moore Stephens	60	58	55	53	52
Haines Watts	70	67	62	58	56
PKF	70	67	64	60	58
Crowe Clark Whitehill	35	34	33	32	31
Saffery Champness	20	21	20	19	18
Duncan & Toplis	25	24	23	22	21
Kingston Smith	20	19	18	17	17
Begbies Traynor	25	24	23	22	21
Menzies	18	17	16	15	15
Blick Rothenberg	15	15	14	13	13
Kreston Reeves	13	13	12	12	12
MHA MacIntyre Hudson	11	11	10	10	10
Jeffreys Henry	9	9	8	8	8
UHY Hacker Young	8	8	7	7	7
H W Fisher	8	8	7	7	7
Wellden Turnbull	8	8	7	7	7
Lubbock Fine	7	7	6	6	6
Price Bailey	6	6	5	5	5
Nyman Libson Paul	5	5	4	4	4
haysmacintyre	4	4	3	3	3
Crowe UK LLP	3	3	2	2	2
Rawlinson & Hunter	2	2	1	1	1
Total	4,385	4,204	3,939	3,695	3,506

a) The total number of PIEs for the 32 largest registered audit firms has declined by 20% from 4,385 in 2009 to 3,506 in 2013.

Number of Responsible Individuals (RIs) by type of firm 2009 – 2013

Chart 13 shows the total number of RIs by type of firm for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Chart Description: Line Chart

X-axis: Years (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) Y-axis: Number of RIs (Responsible Individuals)

Series: * Big Four Firms: Shows a declining trend. * Non-Big Four Firms: Shows a declining trend, but at a different rate.

Key Observations:

• Both Big Four and Non-Big Four firms have seen a decrease in the number of RIs from 2009 to 2013.
• The decline appears to be consistent across both categories, indicating an overall trend in the profession.

• The total number of RIs has declined across both the Big Four firms (13.7%) and the Non-Big Four firms (8.2%). The overall decline has been 11.4%.

Proportion of listed companies audited by Big Four/Non-Big Four firms 2009 – 2013

Chart 14 shows the proportion of listed companies audited by Big Four/Non-Big Four firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

• The proportion of listed companies audited by the Big Four has remained relatively stable at 65% over the period.

Fee income by source (All firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 17 shows total fee income by source for all 32 firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Fee Income Source	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Audit Fees	£7,040	£6,860	£6,700	£6,500	£6,520
Non-Audit to Audit Clients	£1,200	£1,150	£1,100	£1,050	£1,030
Non-Audit to Non-Audit Clients	£5,600	£5,800	£6,000	£6,200	£6,400
Total	£13,840	£13,810	£13,800	£13,750	£13,950

a) Total fee income for all firms surveyed increased slightly in 2012-13 to £13,950 million. b) This is the first year since 2009 that firms have seen an increase rather than a decline in total fee income. c) Fee income from non-audit services provided to non-audit clients continues to grow steadily, whereas fee income from audit services and non-audit services provided to audit clients has declined.

Fee income by source (Big Four firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 18 shows total fee income by source for Big Four firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Fee Income Source	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Audit Fees	£5,800	£5,700	£5,600	£5,500	£5,550
Non-Audit to Audit Clients	£1,000	£950	£900	£850	£820
Non-Audit to Non-Audit Clients	£4,800	£5,000	£5,200	£5,400	£5,600
Total	£11,600	£11,650	£11,700	£11,750	£11,970

a) Total fee income for the Big Four firms increased by 1.9% to £11,970 million in 2012-13. b) Fee income from non-audit services provided to non-audit clients continues to grow steadily, whereas fee income from audit services and non-audit services provided to audit clients has declined.

Fee income by source (Non-Big Four firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 19 shows total fee income by source for Non-Big Four firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Fee Income Source	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Audit Fees	£1,240	£1,160	£1,100	£1,000	£970
Non-Audit to Audit Clients	£200	£200	£200	£200	£210
Non-Audit to Non-Audit Clients	£800	£800	£800	£800	£800
Total	£2,240	£2,160	£2,100	£2,000	£1,980

a) Total fee income for the Non-Big Four firms increased by 2.6% to £1,980 million in 2012-13. b) This is the second year since 2009 that firms outside of the Big Four have seen an increase rather than a decline in total fee income. c) Fee income from non-audit services provided to non-audit clients continues to grow steadily, whereas fee income from audit services has declined.

Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (All firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 20 shows audit fee income per RI for all firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Year	Audit Fee Income (£ million)	Number of RIs	Audit Fee Income per RI (£)
2009	7,040	16,442	428,147
2010	6,860	15,854	432,604
2011	6,700	15,375	435,769
2012	6,500	14,933	435,270
2013	6,520	14,559	447,833

a) Audit fee income per RI increased by 2.9% from 2012 to 2013 to £447,833.

Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (Big Four firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 21 shows audit fee income per RI for Big Four firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Year	Audit Fee Income (£ million)	Number of RIs	Audit Fee Income per RI (£)
2009	5,800	11,600	500,000
2010	5,700	11,650	489,270
2011	5,600	11,700	478,632
2012	5,500	11,750	468,085
2013	5,550	11,970	463,659

a) Audit fee income per RI for Big Four firms increased by 6% from 2012 to 2013 to £463,659.

Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (Non-Big Four firms) 2009 – 2013

Table 22 shows audit fee income per RI for Non-Big Four firms for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Year	Audit Fee Income (£ million)	Number of RIs	Audit Fee Income per RI (£)
2009	1,240	4,842	256,104
2010	1,160	4,204	275,928
2011	1,100	3,675	299,320
2012	1,000	3,183	314,168
2013	970	2,589	374,662

a) Audit fee income per RI for Non-Big Four firms decreased by 1.7% from 2012 to 2013 to £374,662.

7. Annex – Data tables of the charts

Chart 1: Students who became members worldwide for the years ending 2009 – 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
2009	8,435	4,500	400	3,500	1,300	1,100	100
2010	8,900	4,800	420	3,600	1,400	1,200	110
2011	9,100	5,000	450	3,700	1,500	1,300	120
2012	9,200	5,200	480	3,800	1,600	1,400	130
2013	8,800	5,100	460	3,700	1,550	1,350	125

Chart 2: Sectoral employment of members worldwide 2013

Body	Public Practice	Industry & Commerce	Public Sector	Retired	Other
ACCA	25%	55%	15%	3%	2%
CIMA	2%	80%	10%	5%	3%
CIPFA	3%	15%	60%	10%	12%
ICAEW	35%	40%	15%	5%	5%
CAI	40%	35%	10%	5%	10%
ICAS	30%	45%	10%	8%	7%
AIA	4%	85%	5%	3%	3%

Chart 3: Students who became members worldwide for the years ending 2009 – 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
2009	8,435	4,500	400	3,500	1,300	1,100	100
2010	8,900	4,800	420	3,600	1,400	1,200	110
2011	9,100	5,000	450	3,700	1,500	1,300	120
2012	9,200	5,200	480	3,800	1,600	1,400	130
2013	8,800	5,100	460	3,700	1,550	1,350	125

Chart 4: Geographical distribution of students 2013

Body	UK & ROI	Worldwide (excl. UK & ROI)
ACCA	15%	85%
CIMA	30%	70%
CIPFA	70%	30%
ICAEW	92%	8%
CAI	85%	15%
ICAS	75%	25%
AIA	20%	80%

Chart 5: Sectoral employment of students in the UK and ROI 2013

Body	Public Practice	Industry & Commerce	Public Sector	Retired	Other
ACCA	30%	50%	15%	2%	3%
CIMA	5%	75%	15%	3%	2%
CIPFA	10%	20%	60%	5%	5%
ICAEW	45%	40%	10%	2%	3%
CAI	50%	30%	10%	2%	8%
ICAS	40%	40%	10%	3%	7%
AIA	10%	80%	5%	2%	3%

Chart 6: Sectoral employment of students worldwide 2013

Body	Public Practice	Industry & Commerce	Public Sector	Retired	Other
ACCA	25%	55%	15%	2%	3%
CIMA	5%	80%	10%	2%	3%
CIPFA	5%	15%	60%	5%	15%
ICAEW	40%	40%	10%	2%	8%
CAI	45%	35%	10%	2%	8%
ICAS	35%	45%	10%	3%	7%
AIA	5%	85%	5%	2%	3%

Chart 7: Number of Responsible Individuals (RIs) by type of firm 2009 – 2013

	Big Four Firms	Non-Big Four Firms	Total
2009	11,600	4,842	16,442
2010	11,650	4,204	15,854
2011	11,700	3,675	15,375
2012	11,750	3,183	14,933
2013	11,970	2,589	14,559

Chart 8: FRC sanctions on auditors 2009 – 2013

	Total FRC Sanctions
2009	4
2010	3
2011	5
2012	7
2013	9

Chart 9: PII premiums as a % of turnover (all firms) 2009 – 2012

	2009	2010	2011	2012
PII Premiums as % of Turnover	1.3%	1.2%	1.15%	1.1%

Chart 10: PII premiums as a % of turnover (all firms) 2009 – 2012

	2009	2010	2011	2012
PII Premiums as % of Turnover	1.3%	1.2%	1.15%	1.1%

Chart 11: PII premiums as a % of turnover (Big Four firms) 2009 – 2012

	2009	2010	2011	2012
PII Premiums as % of Turnover	0.7%	0.6%	0.55%	0.5%

Chart 12: PII premiums as a % of turnover (Non-Big Four firms) 2009 – 2012

	2009	2010	2011	2012
PII Premiums as % of Turnover	1.6%	1.5%	1.45%	1.3%

Chart 13: Number of Responsible Individuals (RIs) by type of firm 2009 – 2013

	Big Four Firms	Non-Big Four Firms	Total
2009	11,600	4,842	16,442
2010	11,650	4,204	15,854
2011	11,700	3,675	15,375
2012	11,750	3,183	14,933
2013	11,970	2,589	14,559

Chart 14: Proportion of listed companies audited by Big Four/Non-Big Four firms 2009 – 2013

	Big Four Firms	Non-Big Four Firms
2009	65%	35%
2010	65%	35%
2011	65%	35%
2012	65%	35%
2013	65%	35%

² Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) ³ Association of International Accountants (AIA) ⁴ The definition of a Public Interest Entity can be found in the 'AQR: Scope of Independent Inspection 2014/15' which can be found at www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Conduct/Audit-Quality-Review.aspx ¹ The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence. ⁵ The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence. ⁶ The AIA number includes affiliate members who are not full members of the AIA. Affiliate membership is open to those who have a minimum of five years' experience working in accounting and finance. ⁷ 'Other' includes those members who are unemployed, taking a career break, undertaking full time study, on maternity leave, and any members are unclassified, for example, because they have not provided the information. In the case of CAI, all such members are included in their most recent employment category. The ICAEW includes members working within the charity sector under 'Public Sector'. ⁸ The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence. ⁹ The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence. ¹⁰ The figures for disciplinary cases against auditors and actuaries relate to formal disciplinary action taken by a body’s Disciplinary Committee. They do not include cases that are settled without a formal hearing (e.g. by way of an Admissions and Settlement Agreement). ¹¹ The figures for disciplinary cases against auditors and actuaries relate to formal disciplinary action taken by a body’s Disciplinary Committee. They do not include cases that are settled without a formal hearing (e.g. by way of an Admissions and Settlement Agreement).

Chart 2 shows the percentages of members worldwide of each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment¹ at the end of 2013.

Bar chart showing sectoral employment of members worldwide for seven accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) in 2013, with categories for Public Practice, Industry & Commerce, Public Sector, Retired, and Other.

• There are few CIMA, CIPFA and AIA members employed in public practice at 2%, 3% and 4% respectively.
• All bodies apart from CIPFA have more members employed in industry and commerce than in any other category.
• CIPFA is the only body with the majority of its members employed in the public sector.

Gender of Members Worldwide 2009 - 2013

Table 3 shows the percentage of female members worldwide of each of seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	43	30	30	24	35	29	26
2010	44	31	30	25	36	30	28
2011	44	32	31	25	37	31	29
2012	45	33	31	26	38	31	30
2013	45	33	32	26	39	32	32

• The percentage of female members has remained at 35% in both 2012 and 2013.
• ACCA and CAI continue to have the largest proportion of female members.

Age of Members Worldwide 2013

Charts 3 and 4 on the following pages compare the age distribution of members of the seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December, for 2009 and 2013.

• There are significant differences in the age profiles of worldwide members of the seven accountancy bodies. ACCA and CAI have the youngest population of members, with 67% and 66% respectively younger than 45 years. (Chart 3).
• More than 50% of the members of CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAS and AIA are aged 45 or over (Chart 3).
• CIPFA has the oldest age profile of members, with 75% aged 45 or over, compared to 69% in 2009.

Section Three – Students of Accountancy Bodies

Students Registered in the UK and Republic of Ireland 2009 - 2013

Table 4 shows the number of students of each of seven accountancy bodies in the UK and Republic of Ireland as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	88,082	54,373	2,913	14,206	6,171	3,075	143
2010	91,690	54,470	2,687	14,510	5,771	2,962	151
2011	89,220	54,645	2,437	15,014	6,348	2,994	155
2012	84,058	54,010	2,244	15,321	6,265	3,056	185
2013	85,259	55,295	2,058	15,553	6,431	2,978	285
% growth (12 - 13)	1.4	2.4	-8.3	1.5	2.6	-2.6	54.1
% growth (09-13)	-3.2	1.7	-29.4	9.5	4.2	-3.2	99.3
% compound annual growth (09-13)	-0.8	0.4	-8.3	2.3	1.0	-0.8	18.8

• Student numbers in the UK and ROI have increased by 1.6% in 2013 compared with a decline of 3.3% in 2012.
• CIMA, ICAEW, CAI and AIA have all seen an increase in student numbers between 2009 and 2013.

Students Registered Worldwide 2009 - 2013

Table 5 shows the total number of students and individuals worldwide including those who have passed their final admittance examination and completed all necessary practical training but have not yet applied for membership.

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	334,423	92,909	2,978	16,517	6,171	3,119	7,157
2010	357,952	99,264	2,764	17,653	5,771	3,004	7,813
2011	349,325	106,612	2,550	19,073	6,361	3,024	8,431
2012	353,589	112,727	2,336	20,037	6,276	3,083	8,952
2013	365,488	122,394	2,550	20,121	6,440	2,989	9,607
% growth (12 - 13)	3.4	8.6	9.2	0.4	2.6	-3.0	7.3
% growth (09-13)	9.3	31.7	-14.4	21.8	4.4	-4.2	34.2
% compound annual growth (09-13)	2.2	7.1	-3.8	5.1	1.1	-1.1	7.6

• There continue to be wide differences in the numbers and rates of growth in the student membership worldwide.
• Overall student numbers increased by 4.5% in 2013 with an overall compound annual growth of 3.4%.
• The majority of the bodies experienced growth in student numbers between 2009 and 2013.

Location of Students 2013

Chart 5 shows the location² (UK and Republic of Ireland, and the rest of the world) of students of seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2013.

Stacked bar chart showing the location of students (UK & Republic of Ireland vs. Rest of the World) for seven accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) as at 31 December 2013.

• CAI and ICAS have very low proportions of students based outside of the UK and ROI.
• In contrast, the ACCA and AIA have 77% and 97% respectively of students based outside the UK and ROI.
• CIPFA's developing work overseas in 2013 has led to a significant increase in new students with 19% based outside the UK and ROI compared with 4% in 2012.

Profile of Students Worldwide of Seven Accountancy Bodies 2013

Chart 6 sets out on a worldwide basis the length of time that individuals have been registered as students with these accountancy bodies³.

Stacked bar chart illustrating the length of time students have been registered with seven accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) worldwide in 2013, categorized by ≤ 1 Year, >1 - 2 Years, > 2 - 3 Years, > 3 - 4 Years, > 4 - 5 Years, and ≥ 5 Years.

• The chart above must be read with caution as there is not a common basis for determining the length of time between registering as a student and achieving the requirements for membership⁴.
• Students at ACCA, CIMA, and AIA do not typically undertake intensive study and generally take longer to complete the requirements for membership.
• A high percentage of ICAEW, CAI and ICAS students complete their training in 4 years or less with only 8%, 25% and 5% respectively of students as at 31 December 2013 being registered for more than 4 years.

Gender of Students Worldwide 2013

Table 6 shows the percentage worldwide of female students of each of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2013.

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI1	ICAS1	AIA	TOTAL
2009	50	44	50	41	53	47	63
49	2010	49	44	50	40	52	45
64	49	2011	50	44	48	38	51
44	63	48	2012	49	44	49	38
50	43	63	48	2013	51	44	48
39	49	43	63	49

• The total proportion of female students worldwide has remained broadly constant between 2009 and 2013.
• The percentage of female students is significantly higher than the percentage of female members (see Table 3).

Age of Students Worldwide of Seven Accountancy Bodies 2013

Charts 7 and 8 on the following pages compare the age distribution of students⁵ of the seven accountancy bodies as at 31 December, 2009 and 2013.

• CIPFA and the AIA have a higher proportion of mature students than the other bodies, with 60% and 40% respectively of students aged 35 or over. (Chart 7)
• ICAEW and CAI have the highest proportion of students aged 34 or under at 95% and 90% respectively. (Chart 7).

Sectoral Employment of Students Worldwide 2013

Chart 9 shows the sectoral employment of worldwide students of each of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2013.

Stacked bar chart displaying the sectoral employment of students worldwide for seven accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, AIA) in 2013, with categories for Public Practice, Industry & Commerce, Public Sector, and Other.

• Over 80% of students at ICAEW, CAI and ICAS are in public practice. In contrast only 17% of ACCA's students, and less than 1% of AIA's students, are employed in public practice.
• CIMA has the highest percentage of students in industry and commerce (73%) and CIPFA has the highest percentage in the public sector (84%). Overall, 53% of students are in industry and commerce.
• Overall 16% of students are employed in public practice and 12% in the public sector.
• ACCA's students are the most evenly dispersed across the different employment sectors.

Sectoral Employment of Students Worldwide 2013

Chart 9 shows the sectoral employment of worldwide students of each of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2013.

Chart 9: Sectoral Employment of Students Worldwide 2013

A stacked bar chart displaying the sectoral employment of students for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA. Categories are 'Public Practice', 'Industry & Commerce', 'Public Sector', and 'Other', represented by different shades of blue and green.

• Over 80% of students at ICAEW, CAI and ICAS are in public practice. In contrast only 17% of ACCA's students, and less than 1% of AIA's students, are employed in public practice.
• CIMA has the highest percentage of students in industry and commerce (73%) and CIPFA has the highest percentage in the public sector (84%). Overall, 53% of students are in industry and commerce
• Overall 16% of students are employed in public practice and 12% in the public sector.
• ACCA's students are the most evenly dispersed across the different employment sectors.

Graduate Entrants to Training with Seven Accountancy Bodies

Chart 10 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each body who, at the time of registration as students, were (i) graduates of any discipline and, of those, (ii) graduates who held a relevant degree.

Chart 10: Percentage of Students Holding a Degree or a Relevant Degree Worldwide in 2013

A bar chart comparing the percentage of students holding 'a Degree' versus 'a Relevant Degree' for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA. For each body, two bars are shown.

• Comparisons of the percentage of students holding "relevant degrees" are difficult to draw, because the accountancy bodies use different definitions of a “relevant degree" ⁴.
• CIPFA has seen a fall in the percentage of students holding both a degree and a relevant degree. This is due to an increase in the proportion of entrants with professional qualifications and AAT ¹ rather than holding degrees. They also now have much higher overseas student numbers who fulfil minimum entry requirements only.

Pass Rates 2009 – 2013

Chart 11 shows the percentage of candidates who passed the final examination, for the period 2009 to 2013.

Chart 11

• Comparisons of the pass rates across the bodies and year-on-year are difficult, for example, because of differences in the syllabus and the topics examined at each stage of each body's qualification and because the composition of the student populations across the bodies varies substantially.

Chart 12 below shows the percentage of those that were first time passes for the period 2009 to 2013 ⁵.

Chart 12

Section Four – Resource Information on Accountancy Bodies

Analysis of Income of Seven Accountancy Bodies 2009 – 2013

Charts 13 to 15 show the income, surplus/deficit, average income per member/student and analysis of income of seven accountancy bodies worldwide over the period 2009 to 2013.

Chart 13

• ACCA has the fastest growing income, rising at a compound annual rate of 7.7% over the period 2009 to 2013.
• The compound annual growth rate of the income of all the bodies was 3.8% in the period of 2009 to 2013.

Chart 14: Average Income³ per Member and Student of Seven Accountancy Bodies Worldwide between 2009 - 2013 A line chart displaying the average income per member and student for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2009 to

1. Each body's average income trend is represented by a distinct line.

• CIPFA, CAI and ICAS have seen a drop in the average income per member and student between 2009 and 2013 of 10.3%, 35% and 6.1% respectively. ⁴

Chart 15

• Fees and subscriptions taken together with education and exam fees from members and students are the main sources of income for each of the bodies other than CIPFA ⁵. ¹

Staffing of Seven Accountancy Bodies 2009 – 2013

Table 7 shows the number of staff (full time equivalent) employed worldwide by seven accountancy bodies over the period 2009 to 2013.

Category	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	902	362	304	599	133	129	25	2,454
2010	981	371	304	619	138	141	25	2,579
2011	1,032	378	272	657	135	135	25	2,634
2012	1,061	415	228	652	134	140	25	2,655
2013	1,098	420	237	646	134	137	26	2,698
% growth (12-13)	3.5	1.2	3.9	-0.9	0.0	-2.1	4.0	1.6
% growth (09-13)	21.7	16.0	-22.0	7.8	0.8	6.2	4.0	9.9
% compound annual growth (09-13)	5.0	3.8	-6.0	1.9	0.2	1.5	1.0	2.4

Table 7

• The total number of staff employed by the bodies has increased by 9.9% in the period 2009 to 2013.
• The total number of staff employed by the bodies increased by 1.6% in 2013. Only ICAEW and ICAS had declining staff numbers in 2013.

Section Five – Oversight of Audit Regulation

Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs)

The FRC recognises five bodies, known as Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs) ² to register and supervise audit firms, in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 10 to the Companies Act

1. The RSBs meet the requirements of the Act through four main processes; audit registration, audit monitoring, arrangements for the investigation of complaints, and procedures to ensure that those eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor continue to maintain an appropriate level of competence.

Table 8 details the number of registered audit firms for the five RSBs split by number of principals at each firm as at 31 December for each of the five years to 31 December 2013.

Number of Principals in Firm	ACCA	AAPA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
1	1,434	38	1,517	562	74	3,625
2 - 6	691	1	1,791	388	126	2,997
7 - 10	7	0	170	13	12	202
11 - 50	7	0	98	6	6	117
50+	0	0	16	3	2	21
Total as at 31.12.13	2,139	39	3,592	972	220	6,962
Total as at 31.12.12	2,255	49	3,728	986	221	7,239
Total as at 31.12.11	2,224	57	3,864	995	235	7,375
Total as at 31.12.10	2,217	61	3,958	986	235	7,457
Total as at 31.12.09	2,436	67	4,113	985	242	7,843

Table 8

Application for Registration as a Statutory Audit Firm & the Number Refused 2011 – 2013

Year	Body	New	Refused
2011	ACCA	142	2
	ICAEW	235	0
	CAI	73	1
	ICAS	10	0
	TOTAL	460	3
2012	ACCA	138	0
	ICAEW	186	1
	CAI	66	1
	ICAS	30	0
	TOTAL	420	2
2013	ACCA	94	0
	ICAEW	211	0
	CAI	45	1
	ICAS	12	0
	TOTAL	362	1

Table 9

• The number of firms registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK continues to fall, although the rate of decrease has slowed. The number of registered audit firms fell by 11.2% between 2009 and 2013 and by 3.8% during 2013.
• More than 50% of registered firms are sole practitioners. The number of sole practitioners fell by 0.5% in 2013. The number of sole practitioners has declined each year since 2003 ³.
• The decrease in the number of registered audit firms has coincided with an increase in the proportion of companies filing annual accounts at Companies House that are audit exempt, from 69.5% in 2008/09 to 72.1% in 2012/13 ⁴. This follows increases in the audit exemption threshold in 2004 and 2008.

Monitoring of Registered Audit Firms

Table 10 below gives details of the number of monitoring visits conducted by the RSBs during the years ended 31 December 2009 to 31 December 2013, and the proportion of registered audit firms that were visited during these years. There is a statutory requirement that the RSBs should monitor the activities undertaken by each registered audit firm at least once every six years.

Year	Type	ACCA1	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
2009	No	425	757	102	51	1,335
	%	17.0	18.4	10.4	21.1	17.0
2010	No	357	751	84	50	1,242
	%	15.7	19.0	8.5	21.3	16.7
2011	No	373	716	22	56	1,167
	%	16.4	18.5	2.2	23.8	15.8
2012	No	579	691	126	40	1,436
	%	25.1	18.5	12.8	18.1	19.8
2013	No	471	670	169	41	1,351
	%	21.6	18.7	17.4	18.6	19.4

Table 10

Reasons for Monitoring Visits to Firms During the Years Ending 31 December 2011 to 2013

Reason	Year	ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
Requested by the registration/licensing committee	2011	46	29	3	16	94
	2012	47	8	2	14	71
	2013	53	33	1	18	105
Specifically selected due to heightened risk	2011	42	59	19	39	159
	2012	27	39	67	24	157
	2013	46	21	12	19	98
Randomly selected	2011	285	579	0	0	864
	2012	505	596	57	0	1,158
	2013	372	566	152	0	1,090
Firms with Public Interest Entities visited without AQR5 involvement6	2011	0	49	0	0	49
	2012	0	48	0	1	49
	2013	0	37	4	3	44
Firms with Public Interest Entities visited with AQR involvement	2011	0	0	0	1	1
	2012	0	0	0	1	1
	2013	0	13	0	1	14

Table 11

• The majority of Public Interest Entities are audited by firms registered with the ICAEW. These firms are subject to monitoring, independent of the RSBs, by the AQR team.
• CAI deployed additional resources to increase the number of visits undertaken in order to meet the Statutory Audit Directive requirement to visit all firms in a 6 year period.

5 Audit Quality Review (AQR), is a part of the Financial Reporting Council. 6 The bodies visit firms which have public interest entities. These inspections are either delegated to them by the AQR or are outside of the scope of the AQR.

Gradings 2011 - 2013

Tables 12 to 15 show the gradings for the audit monitoring visits conducted by ACCA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS during the years ended 31 December 2011 to 2013 together with brief explanatory comments from the bodies where available.

The RSBs are undertaking a joint project with the aim of achieving more consistent data on the quality of audit files reviewed across all the bodies. This has been largely achieved although there continue to be some differences in the name of the overall grades used by each body for the visit as a whole and in the monitoring process itself.

The monitoring results for any one year are not typically directly comparable with the results of previous years. This is because the mix of firms selected in each year is likely to vary, as between firms selected as higher risk, those randomly selected and firms selected to meet the six year cycle.

Particular care is needed in interpreting the percentage of "D" outcomes at each body, especially given that the sample of firms inspected in any year will often include a disproportionate number of weaker firms selected because of higher risk.

It should also be noted that outcomes include a number of visits to audit registered firms that currently have no audit clients.

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)

ACCA		2011	2012	2013
A & B	No	208	417	323
Outcomes	%	56	72	69
C+	No	47	48	35
Outcomes	%	12	8	7
C-	No	14	18	13
Outcomes	%	4	3	3
D	No	104	96	100
Outcomes	%	28	17	21

Table 12

Those firms that are graded 'A' are judged to comply with all aspects of the Global Practising Regulations (GPRs), Code of Ethics and Conduct (CEC) and relevant auditing standards. Those firms rated 'B' are judged to comply with the GPRs, CEC and auditing standards in all material respects. Firms are graded 'C+' or 'C-' by the ACCA if their quality controls over audit work are either weak or not consistently effective so that the audit work is unsatisfactory and improvements are required. The 'C-' grade indicates that the improvements required are significant. When a firm's work is very poor or if a firm has a second or subsequent unsatisfactory visit and there are no mitigating factors the visit is graded a 'D' and the firm will be referred to a regulatory assessor or the Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC). A 'D' outcome does not always result from an inadequate standard of audit work; it may also indicate a firm has failed to meet the eligibility requirements to hold a firm's auditing certificate.

The 323 visits with 'A' & 'B' outcomes in 2013 include 119 (2012: 217) visits to firms that currently have no audit clients. This has had a significant effect on the overall percentages of satisfactory and unsatisfactory outcomes.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW)

ICAEW		2011	2012	2013
A & B	No	385	422	399
Outcomes	%	54	61	60
C	No	149	137	136
Outcomes	%	21	20	20
D	No	71	62	64
Outcomes	%	10	9	9
N	No	111	70	71
Outcomes	%	15	10	11

Table 13

Visits graded 'A' are those where there are no instances of non-compliance with the Institute's audit regulations and no follow-up action is required. 'B' rated visits are those with evidence of non-compliance with the Audit Regulations, but where the Quality Assurance Directorate (QAD) is confident that the firm's responses, as set out in the closing meeting notes, adequately address all the issues and that no follow up action is required. A 'C' rated report records instances of non-compliance with the Audit Regulations where the QAD considers that there is some doubt about the actions proposed or the firm's competence, resources or commitment, but that there is no need for the Audit Registration Committee (ARC) to impose further conditions or restrictions. 'D' rated visits record cases of non-compliance with the Audit Regulations that need to be referred to the ARC for possible further action. An 'N' visit grading is used for any circumstances that cannot be rated in accordance with the criteria set out above, for example, when a firm wishes to continue with registration but has no audit clients and no audit work has been reviewed or the firm has applied to withdraw from registration and QAD proposes acceptance.

The percentage visit gradings in 2013 remain broadly consistent with prior years.

Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI)

Chartered Accountants Ireland		2011	2012	2013
A & B	No	13	31	61
Outcomes	%	37	41	39
C	No	9	24	27
Outcomes	%	26	32	17
D	No	13	21	70
Outcomes	%	37	28	44

Table 14

Reports graded 'A' are where no instances of non-compliance have been recorded. Grade 'B' indicates that the firm has the ability and commitment to address the issues identified during the visit. Where reports are graded 'C', firms are required to give undertakings in writing covering the actions they must take and some further follow-up action may be required. There is a considerable difference between a report graded a 'C' and one graded a 'D'. Reports graded a 'D' have significant issues and will always require follow-up action. Those reports will always be considered by the Head of Quality Assurance and by the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC).

The increase in the number of firms visited in 2013 reflects in part the need to meet the requirement to visit all registered audit firms within six years. The population of firms visited year on year is not directly comparable.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

ICAS		2011	2012	2013
A & B	No	27	18	24
Outcomes	%	48	45	58
C2	No	15	9	6
Outcomes	%	27	22	15
C1	No	6	8	6
Outcomes	%	10	20	15
D	No	8	5	5
Outcomes	%	15	13	12

Table 15

An 'A' rating indicates that there are no issues to deal with. A 'B' rating indicates there are some regulatory issues but that these have been addressed adequately by the firm's closing meeting responses and no further action is required. 'C' gradings indicate that there are regulatory issues and there is a need for the firm to show that planned changes have occurred by submitting further information. The 'C' grading is split into 'C1' and 'C2' gradings with 'C1' being the more serious. This is used where the issues are considered to be pervasive, whereas 'C2' gradings are used where findings are specific to particular individuals or files and do not indicate systemic problems. A 'D' rating is given when the standard of compliance is such that the Audit Registration Committee (ARC) needs to consider appropriate follow-up action, such as imposition of conditions and restrictions or withdrawal of registration.

Complaints about Auditors

Table 16 shows the number of complaints received by the RSBs between 2011 to 2013 to show (i) number of new cases⁷, (ii) number of cases passed to the FRC Professional Discipline Team⁸, (iii) number of cases passed to the committee⁹, (iv) number of complaints closed in the year¹⁰ and (v) average time taken to close a complaint.

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI11	ICAS	TOTAL
	2011	31	85	36	8	160
Number of	2012	32	84	21	3	140
New Cases	2013	48	87	44	3	182
	2011	0	2	0	0	2
Number of	2012	0	0	0	0	0
Cases	2013	0	0	0	0	0
directly
12 passed to
the FRC
Professional
Discipline
team
	2011	3	71	12	6	92
Number of	2012	3	54	5	0	62
Cases	2013	8	49	11	2	70
passed to
the
Committee
	2011	43	89	6	3	141
Number of	2012	22	82	3	3	110
Complaints	2013	16	61	4	1	82
closed in
the year
	2011	10.3	11	4.6	5.6
Average	2012	12.1	11	5.3	3.4
time taken	2013	11.2	13	4.0	3.2
to close a
Complaint
(in months)

Table 16

• The figures of CAI complaints for 2011 and 2012 are for audit-related complaints only. 2013 figures include all types of complaints.

Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

There are six bodies¹³ in the UK recognised to offer the audit qualification in line with the requirements of Schedule 11 to the Companies Act

1. RQBs must have rules and arrangements in place to register students and track their progress, administer examinations and ensure that appropriate training is given to students in an approved environment.

Table 17 below shows the number of students registered with each RQB¹⁴ as at 31 December 2011 to 2013, and shows the number of members who were awarded the audit qualification and the number of students following the audit route or eligible for the audit qualification.

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
	2011	89,220	15,014	6,348	2,994	155
Number of	2012	84,058	15,321	6,265	3,056	185
students in	2013	85,259	15,553	6,431	2,978	285
the UK and
ROI
	2011	N/A	13,258	3,925	N/A16	8
Number of	2012	N/A	13,332	4,332	N/A	9
students	2013	N/A	13,304	4,306	N/A	9
following the
audit route
or eligible
for the audit
qualification
	2011	106	25,73015	800	980	0
The number of	2012	147	484	671	1,209	0
members who	2013	135	519	616	370	0
were awarded
the audit
qualification
	2012	2,166	119,307	N/A	N/A	10
The number of	2013	3,609	119,213	5,878	10,965	10
members who
hold the audit
qualification

Table 17

• Please note many members do not apply for the audit qualification until they wish to be able to sign audit reports. In addition, due to the rise in the audit threshold and the reduction in the availability of audit work, fewer students are able to meet the practical training requirements to be awarded this qualification.

Approved Training Offices

Charts 16 and 17 below show the total number of approved training offices¹⁷ and those training offices approved¹⁸ for training audit students in the UK and ROI over the period 2009 to 2013.

Chart 16

Chart 17

Section Six – Audit Firms

Introductory Note: Major Audit Firms

This information has been provided on a voluntary basis and we would like to thank all the firms who responded to our requests. Some of this information is otherwise publicly available – for example those firms which are LLPs must file accounts at Companies House which meet the statutory requirements. Table 18 shows the fee income for audit and non-audit services for 32 of the largest registered audit firms for the year ended

1. Most of these have clients who are UK public interest entities. Firms are listed in order of fee income from audit, rather than total fee income. This table also shows that the average percentage of female partners in 2013 is 15%.

Table 21 shows those firms with audit clients whose securities are traded on a UK regulated market² and must therefore publish a transparency report each year, in accordance with the requirements of the Statutory Auditors (Transparency) Instrument. Of the 26 audit firms within the table, 22 of them are required to, and have, published a transparency report³, in respect of their 2013 year ends.

Table 18 should not be seen as a league table. Not all the firms we approached were willing to disclose information on fee income or considered that they could provide sufficiently reliable information in the desired form. It is likely therefore that there are firms not included in the tables that have a higher audit fee income than some of those that are shown. Also, we have not included accountancy firms that are not registered as statutory auditors. Care is needed to make detailed comparisons between firms using the information in Table

1. Some firms do not analyse their fee income in this manner and have made an informed estimate of the figures. In addition, firms may classify their audit and non-audit income in slightly different ways.

Charts 18 and 19 analyse the detailed fee income from Table 18 for the Big Four firms and for many of the larger firms outside of the Big Four respectively⁴.

• The percentage of fee income derived from non-audit clients has been rising steadily over the past five years for both the Big Four and for many of the larger firms outside of the Big Four. This is mirrored by a slow decrease in the proportion of fee income from non-audit work for audit clients.
• The percentage of total fee income derived from audit work has declined by 2% for the Big Four firms and by 4% for many of the larger firms outside of the Big Four over the last five years. (Charts 18 and 19)

UK Firm Name	UK Structure	Year End	No of Principals2	% of Female Principals	No of Audit Principals	No of Responsible Individuals3	Fee Income: Audit4 (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work4 to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)	Total Fee Income (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers	LLP	30-Jun-13	874	14%	221	361	552	331	1,553	2,436
Deloitte1	LLP	31-May-13	736	15%	159	197	504	192	1,609	2,305
KPMG5	LLP	30-Sep-13	583	14%	145	243	446	276	1,060	1,782
Ernst & Young	LLP	30-Jun-13	548	15%	108	171	333	222	1,166	1,721
Grant Thornton UK	LLP	30-Jun-13	206	19%	73	119	117	48	306	471
BDO6	LLP	30-Jun-13	289	11%	110	134	108	44	150	302
Baker Tilly7	LLP	31-Mar-13	222	14%	91	110	51	28	86	165
Mazars	LLP	31-Aug-13	108	10%	47	50	44	17	59	120
Crowe Clark Whitehill	LLP	31-Mar-13	69	15%	40	41	23	8	23	54
MHA MacIntyre Hudson	LLP	31-Mar-13	62	20%	38	38	22	7	10	39
Moore Stephens	LLP	30-Apr-13	62	15%	25	26	13	4	46	63
Kingston Smith	LLP	30-Apr-13	53	25%	44	44	12	5	16	33
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit	Company	30-Apr-13	135	11%	27	26	12	N/A	48	60
Haysmacintyre	Partnership	31-Mar-13	27	26%	21	21	10	4	4	18
Haines Watts Group	Group of Partnerships	31-Mar-13	158	9%	80	84	10	7	44	61
UHY Hacker Young	Group of Partnerships	30-Apr-13	99	13%	58	60	10	4	34	48
Buzzacott	LLP	30-Sept-13	33	21%	13	13	9	3	16	28
Saffery Champness	Partnership	31-Mar-13	61	18%	37	37	9	6	26	41
Chantrey Vellacott DFK8	LLP	31-Dec-13	42	12%	19	19	8	2	21	31
Menzies	LLP	31-Mar-13	34	6%	18	21	6	7	13	26
PKF Littlejohn9	LLP	31-May-13	28	17%	20	20	6	3	7	16
Johnston Carmichael	LLP	31-May-13	51	8%	13	19	5	N/A	N/A	30
Scott Moncrieff	Partnership	30-Apr-13	15	13%	7	8	5	2	4	11
Cooper Parry Group10	Limited Company	30-Apr-13	6	0%	4	12	4	5	6	15
Francis Clark	LLP	31-Mar-13	46	11%	17	18	4	N/A	N/A	26
Reeves & Co	LLP	31-May-13	41	17%	18	18	4	2	14	20
Bishop Fleming	Partnership	31-May-13	26	11%	14	15	3	1	12	16
James Cowper	LLP	30-Apr-13	13	23%	7	8	3	2	7	12
Mercer & Hole	Partnership	30-Sep-13	18	24%	8	8	2	N/A	8	10
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-13	33	12%	10	10	1	1	14	16
Chiene & Tait	Scottish Partnership	30-Sep-13	8	25%	3	3	1	0	5	6
Lovewell Blake	LLP	30-Sep-13	25	8%	10	10	1	1	12	14

Table 18

Growth of Fee Income

Table 19² shows the percentage growth rate of fee income for each of the years from 2008/09 to 2012/13 for many of the largest registered audit firms, split between the Big Four audit firms, the larger firms outside of the Big Four and between audit and non-audit income.

To ensure consistency in the table below, we have only included income figures for firms that have submitted data for all five years for both audit and non-audit income³.

Growth Rate %		2012-13	2011-12	2010-11	2009-10	2008-9
	Big Four Firms	3.9	7.7	5.7	-1.3	0.4
Total fee income	Non Big Four Firms	2.6	0.6	-0.5	-7.0	-1.9
	Big Four Firms	2.8	4.9	0.9	-2.2	1.2
Audit fee income	Non Big Four Firms	-1.7	-5.0	-2.2	-6.9	0.5
	Big Four Firms	-3.2	1.9	-1.8	-5.7	-6.2
Non-audit work to Audit Clients Fee Income	Non Big Four Firms	-0.5	-7.5	-0.5	-11.7	-7.2
Non-audit work to Non-Audit Clients fee income	Big Four Firms	5.8	10.0	9.4	0.2	1.9
	Non Big Four Firms	5.7	5.9	0.6	-5.6	-1.8

Table 19

• The percentage of total fee income for the Big Four has increased by 3.9% this year. There has also been an average increase of 2.6% for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four in 2012-13.
• Audit fee income for the Big Four firms continues to grow, albeit at a slower rate of 2.8%. Audit fee income has declined for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four in each of the last four years.
• Fee income from non-audit work to non-audit clients continues to grow but at a slower rate than 2011/12 for both the Big Four firms and for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four.

Table 19¹¹ shows the percentage growth rate of fee income for each of the years from 2008/09 to 2012/13 for many of the largest registered audit firms, split between the Big Four audit firms, the larger firms outside of the Big Four and between audit and non-audit income.

To ensure consistency in the table below, we have only included income figures for firms that have submitted data for all five years for both audit and non-audit income¹².

Growth Rate %	2012-13	2011-12	2010-11	2009-10	2008-9
Total fee income
Big Four Firms	3.9	7.7	5.7	-1.3	0.4
Non Big Four Firms	2.6	0.6	-0.5	-7.0	-1.9
Audit fee income
Big Four Firms	2.8	4.9	0.9	-2.2	1.2
Non Big Four Firms	-1.7	-5.0	-2.2	-6.9	0.5
Non-audit work to Audit Clients Fee Income
Big Four Firms	-3.2	1.9	-1.8	-5.7	-6.2
Non Big Four Firms	-0.5	-7.5	-0.5	-11.7	-7.2
Non-audit work to Non-Audit Clients fee income
Big Four Firms	5.8	10.0	9.4	0.2	1.9
Non Big Four Firms	5.7	5.9	0.6	-5.6	-1.8

Table 19

• The percentage of total fee income for the Big Four has increased by 3.9% this year. There has also been an average increase of 2.6% for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four in 2012-13.
• Audit fee income for the Big Four firms continues to grow, albeit at a slower rate of 2.8%. Audit fee income has declined for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four in each of the last four years.
• Fee income from non-audit work to non-audit clients continues to grow but at a slower rate than 2011/12 for both the Big Four firms and for the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four.

Audit Fee Income per Responsible Individual

Table 20¹³ illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI)¹⁴ for 2009 to 2013 (inclusive). This information is split further between the Big Four firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.

Audit Fee Income Per RI (£m)	2013	2012	2011	2010	2009
Largest registered audit firms	1.19	1.11	1.07	1.06	1.05
Big Four Firms	1.89	1.78	1.67	1.65	1.60
Non Big Four Firms	0.51	0.48	0.50	0.50	0.51

Table 20

• The total fee income from audit per RI has seen an upward trend with 6% growth for the Big Four Firms and a similar increase for many of the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four in 2013.
• Audit fee income per RI for many of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four has remained largely static over the past 5 years.

CONCENTRATION OF LISTED COMPANIES' AUDITS - YEAR ENDED 2013

(By Number of Listed Clients – FTSE 100, FTSE 250, UK Equity Listed on Regulated Markets and AIM)

UK Firm Name	UK Structure	Year End	No of FTSE 100 Audit Clients15	No of FTSE 250 Audit Clients15	Total No of Other Clients listed on Regulated Markets15	No of AIM Audit Clients15
PricewaterhouseCoopers	LLP	30-Jun-13	41	62	92	107
KPMG16	LLP	30-Sep-13	23	54	130	63
Deloitte	LLP	31-May-13	21	70	80	58
Ernst & Young	LLP	30-Jun-13	14	50	92	49
BDO	LLP	30-Jun-13	1	10	55	146
Grant Thornton UK	LLP	30-Jun-13	0	5	63	125
James Cowper	LLP	30-Apr-13	0	0	13	2
Baker Tilly17	LLP	31-Mar-13	0	0	10	52
Scott Moncrieff	Partnership	30-Apr-13	0	0	5	3
UHY Hacker Young	Group of Partnerships	30-Apr-13	0	0	3	29
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit	Company	30-Apr-13	0	0	3	26
Chantrey Vellacott DFK18	LLP	31-Dec-13	0	0	3	15
Chiene & Tait	Scottish Partnership	30-Sep-13	0	0	3	0
Haysmacintyre	Partnership	31-Mar-13	0	0	2	9
Moore Stephens	LLP	30-Apr-13	0	0	2	5
Crowe Clark Whitehill	LLP	31-Mar-13	0	0	1	35
PKF Littlejohn19	LLP	31-May-13	0	0	1	15
Mazars	LLP	31-Aug-13	0	0	1	12
Kingston Smith	LLP	30-Apr-13	0	0	1	7
Saffery Champness	Partnership	31-Mar-13	0	0	1	3
Menzies	LLP	31-Mar-13	0	0	1	2
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-13	0	0	1	0
Haines Watts Group	Group of Partnerships	31-Mar-13	0	0	0	4
Francis Clark	LLP	31-Mar-13	0	0	0	2
Reeves & Co	LLP	31-May-13	0	0	0	2
MHA MacIntyre Hudson	LLP	31-Mar-13	0	0	0	1

Table 21

Concentration of listed Companies' Audits20

Table 22 illustrates the percentage of the number of audits undertaken by the Big Four firms²¹, the next six firms²² (based on the number of listed audit clients) and other audit firms, with UK equity listed companies as audit clients.

For the purposes of Table 22, where a listed company is audited by a firm from the Crown Dependencies it has been given the same classification as its UK counterparts.

	Big Four Firms (%)				Next Six Firms (%)				Other Firms (%)
	31/12/13	31/12/12	31/12/11	31/12/10	31/12/13	31/12/12	31/12/11	31/12/10	31/12/13	31/12/12	31/12/11	31/12/10
FTSE 10020	98.0	99.0	99.0	99.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
FTSE 25020	96.0	94.4	95.2	95.6	4.0	5.6	4.8	4.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other UK Main Market	68.1	66.3	68.7	66.6	23.7	24.8	23.9	25.1	8.2	8.9	7.4	8.3
All Main Market	78.8	78.3	78.4	78.5	16.0	16.5	16.8	16.5	5.2	5.2	4.8	5.0

Table 22

Source: Audit Quality Review team

• There has been little change in the proportion of listed companies audited by the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four firms in recent years.

Audit Firms

Table 23 analyses total fee income of ICAEW registered²³ audit firms by size. (Please note that the information is based on the data provided to the ICAEW in the annual return from each firm).

Firms ranked by size	Average Total Fee Income (£'000)
1 to 4	2,061,000
5 to 9	202,000
10 to 30	23,148
31 to 100	7,892
101 to 500	2,340
501 to 1000	997
1001 to 2000	479
2001 to 3000	165
3001 to 3886	11

Table 23

• Approximately 71% of the total fee income of audit firms is attributable to the Big Four. The information in Table 23 is not directly comparable with the figures shown in Table 18, which consolidate the income of all the entities through which the firm operates i.e. both audit registered entities and other entities.

Section Four – Annex – Data tables of the charts

Seven - Annex of Tables shown as graphs24

Chart 1 - Students who became Members

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	8,934	4,659	328	3,418	1,093	863	42	19,337
2010	9,372	4,849	242	3,290	1,332	768	45	19,898
2011	9,156	5,030	244	3,118	1,064	804	22	19,438
2012	10,124	5,736	263	3,475	1,096	765	25	21,484
2013	9,836	5,527	282	3,252	1,100	619	25	20,641
% growth (12-13)	-2.8	-3.6	7.2	-6.4	0.4	-19.1	0.0	-3.9

Chart 5 - Location of Students as at 31 December 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland	85,259	55,295	2,058	15,553	6,431	2,978	285	167,859
Rest of the World	280,229	67,099	492	4,568	9	11	9,322	361,730
TOTAL	365,488	122,394	2,550	20,121	6,440	2,989	9,607	529,589

Chart 2 - Sectoral Employment of Members Worldwide 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Public Practice	40,813	1,606	394	43,256	6,386	5,162	383	98,000
Industry & Commerce	95,293	71,933	1,057	60,243	13,444	9,075	7,378	258,423
Public Sector	16,103	12,322	7,794	9,238	506	521	39	46,523
Retired	7,264	9,764	3,411	21,895	844	3,515	724	47,417
Other	6,152	300	672	7,702	1,648	1,836	21	18,331
TOTAL	165,625	95,925	13,328	142,334	22,828	20,109	8,545	468,694

Chart 6 - Profile of Students Worldwide of Seven Accountancy Bodies 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
≤ 1 Year	78,646	31,933	812	5,392	1,474	762	767	119,786
>1 - 2 Years	61,384	22,893	281	5,117	1,196	907	583	92,361
> 2 - 3 Years	47,524	13,872	186	4,689	1,233	866	699	69,069
> 3 - 4 Years	42,537	10,230	197	3,339	925	294	781	58,303
> 4 - 5 Years	34,212	6,890	1,074	892	462	63	642	44,235
≥ 5 Years	101,185	36,576	N/A	1,150	97	6,135	692	145,835
TOTAL	365,488	122,394	2,550	20,121	6,440	2,989	9,607	529,589

Chart 3 - Comparison of Age Profile of Members of Accountancy Bodies Worldwide 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Under 25	842	114	0	220	25	30	17	1,248
25-34	46,649	18,028	1,035	24,563	8,325	5,993	674	105,267
35-44	62,677	33,354	2,240	31,774	6,788	4,050	2,934	143,817
45-54	34,862	23,167	4,119	35,563	4,155	3,600	2,351	107,817
55-64	14,140	11,883	2,944	25,364	2,095	2,938	1,294	60,658
65 and over	6,455	9,379	2,836	24,850	1,440	3,498	1,275	49,733
TOTAL	165,625	95,925	13,174	142,334	22,828	20,109	8,545	468,540

Chart 7 - Comparison of Age Profile of Students of Accountancy Bodies Worldwide 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Under 25	107,911	34,900	81	9,925	2,376	1,560	2,252	159,005
25-34	180,106	52,224	938	9,259	3,426	867	3,532	250,352
35-44	60,280	25,209	669	791	490	13	2,611	90,063
45 and over	17,191	10,061	584	146	136	1	1,212	29,331
Not Stated	0	0	278	0	12	548	0	838
TOTAL	365,488	122,394	2,550	20,121	6,440	2,989	9,607	529,589

Chart 4 - Comparison of Age Profile of Members of Accountancy Bodies Worldwide 2009

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Under 25	356	59	1	199	17	98	15	745
25-34	37,327	15,472	1,087	24,205	6,886	4,995	872	90,844
35-44	53,432	28,698	3,122	34,668	5,771	3,940	2,198	131,829
45-54	27,285	18,310	3,907	31,651	3,328	3,513	1,401	89,395
55-64	12,273	9,879	3,398	24,386	1,722	2,686	1,128	55,472
65 and over	6,560	7,339	2,204	19,589	1,078	3,046	952	40,768
TOTAL	137,233	79,757	13,719	134,698	18,802	18,278	6,566	409,053

Chart 8 - Comparison of Age Profile of Students of Accountancy Bodies Worldwide 2009

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Under 25	100,850	29,895	151	9,877	2,325	1,558	2,198	146,854
25-34	162,905	49,350	962	9,089	3,409	924	3,260	229,899
35-44	72,252	23,891	623	918	436	15	2,450	100,585
45 and over	17,582	9,591	506	153	106	1	1,044	28,983
Not Stated	0	0	94	0	0	585	0	679
TOTAL	353,589	112,727	2,336	20,037	6,276	3,083	8,952	507,000

Chart 9 - Sectoral Employment of Students Worldwide 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Public Practice	61,580	0	0	16,633	5,140	2,828	57	86,238
Industry & Commerce	182,941	89,037	54	735	165	161	5,339	278,432
Public Sector	45,795	14,015	2,140	299	10	0	62	62,321
Other	75,172	19,342	356	2,454	1,125	0	4,149	102,598
TOTAL	365,488	122,394	2,550	20,121	6,440	2,989	9,607	529,589

Chart 10 - Percentage of Students Holding a Degree or a Relevant Degree Worldwide in 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
Holding a Degree	48%	52%	10%	81%	94%	99%	50%
Holding a Relevant Degree	45%	41%	5%	19%	80%	45%	42%

Charts 11-12 - Percentage of Passes at the Final Examination and those passes that were First Time Passes 2009-2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
2009	44	59	70	75	76	76	22
2010	47	64	65	77	62	82	17
Percentage of passes at the final examination	55	60	65	75	54	77	9
2012	54	52	68	74	62	84	18
2013	55	54	68	75	63	89	24
2009	43	63	N/A	84	74	N/A	N/A
2010	49	58	N/A	80	62	N/A	N/A
Percentage of those passes that were first time passes	57	56	74	78	55	N/A	N/A
2012	55	69	76	78	62	N/A	N/A
2013	59	65	84	79	63	N/A	N/A

Chart 16 - Total number of approved Training Offices in the UK & ROI 2009 - 2013

	ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
2009	5,404	2,659	828	168	0
2010	5,207	2,744	837	167	0
No of approved Training Offices in the UK & ROI	4,872	2,906	834	175	0
2012	4,426	3,022	814	145	0
2013	4,322	3,167	793	172	17

Chart 17 - Number of Training Offices in the UK & ROI approved for training audit students 2009 - 2013

	ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
2009	4,061	2,062	578	N/A	N/A
2010	3,812	2,031	460	N/A	N/A
No of approved Training Offices for training audit students in the UK & ROI	3,656	1,529	449	N/A	N/A
2012	3,527	2,058	453	N/A	N/A
2013	3,413	2,064	444	N/A	N/A

Chart 13 - Income of Seven Accountancy Bodies Worldwide between 2009 - 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	119.0	42.7	40.6	73.7	25.6	16.7	1.1	319.4
2010	133.0	42.3	35.6	76.4	23.0	16.9	1.2	328.3
2011	144.0	45.5	28.3	82.4	22.0	17.0	1.3	340.5
2012	152.0	50.9	25.5	82.7	22.1	18.4	1.5	353.1
2013	160.0	54.8	26.1	87.6	22.3	17.8	1.5	370.1

Chart 14 - Average Income per Member and Student of Seven Accountancy Bodies Worldwide between 2009-2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2009	235.3	216.6	435.4	413.3	957.0	677.7	294.1
2010	246.8	214.0	438.2	412.9	830.1	670.2	74.0	295.2
2011	269.7	237.7	410.1	432.3	718.8	653.0	82.6	312.0
2012	279.2	223.5	377.9	410.3	707.7	670.4	76.8	309.2
2013	284.3	225.8	390.5	433.4	622.4	632.1	77.1	311.7

Chart 15 - Analysis of the Income for Seven Accountancy Bodies in 2013

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Fees & Subscriptions	69.0	32.3	3.3	41.5	8.0	6.2	1.3	161.6
Education & Exam Fees	78.0	17.0	2.8	10.2	7.2	6.7	0.1	122.0
Regulation & Discipline	4.0	0.0	0.1	18.7	3.1	1.7	0.0	27.6
Commercial Activities	8.0	5.1	19.9	14.7	2.5	1.7	0.0	51.9
Other (Including Investment Income)	1.0	0.4	0.0	2.5	1.6	1.4	0.1	7.0
TOTAL	160.0	54.8	26.1	87.6	22.3	17.7	1.5	370.0

Financial Reporting Council 8th Floor 125 London Wall London EC2Y 5AS

+44 (0)20 7492 2300 www.frc.org.uk

---

1. Deloitte LLP figures for 2013 relate to practising activities in the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man only. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

2. In most cases the LSE Main Market ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

3. Available on each firm's website ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

4. Information on fee income by audit for earlier years can be found in previous editions of Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, available at www.frc.org.uk - Key Facts and Trends ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

5. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

6. On 19 April 2013 PKF (UK) LLP merged with BDO LLP. ↩↩↩↩

7. Includes both Baker Tilly and Baker Tilly UK Holdings Ltd. Baker Tilly completed the acquisition of RSM Tenon Audit Plc on 2 September 2013. ↩↩↩

8. Chantrey Vellacott DFK has changed its year end from 30 June to 31 December. ↩↩↩↩

9. Littlejohn merged with PKF International on 25 April 2013 and is now called PKF Littlejohn. ↩↩↩↩

10. Cooper Parry has changed its structure from an LLP to a Limited Company. ↩↩↩↩

11. This information is based on the information provided to the FRC and which is shown in the detailed tables on fee income of major audit firms. ↩↩↩↩

12. The data will be different in some cases from that published in earlier versions of Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, due to figures being restated for previous years by the firms. ↩↩

13. The historic information in this table has been updated as a result of changes in a number of submissions made by some of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four. ↩↩

14. RIs have been awarded the recognised professional qualification in audit and hold a practising certificate. An RI can sign an audit report on behalf of his/her firm. ↩↩

15. The number of clients reported relates to entities whether incorporated in the UK or elsewhere that are audit clients of the UK firm. The figures for 'Other clients listed on Regulated Markets' include clients which have equity listed on one or more regulated markets. ↩↩↩↩↩

16. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩↩

17. Includes both Baker Tilly and Baker Tilly UK Holdings Ltd. Baker Tilly completed the acquisition of RSM Tenon Audit Plc on 2 September 2013. ↩↩

18. Chantrey Vellacott DFK has changed its year end from 30 June to 31 December. ↩↩

19. Littlejohn merged with PKF International on 25 April 2013 and is now called PKF Littlejohn. ↩

20. Incudes International Main Market Companies. ↩↩↩

21. Includes Big Four network firm offices whether located in the UK or elsewhere. ↩

22. The data for 2011 and 2012 is for the next six firms. All other years are for the next five firms. The data for previous years in this section has not been restated so is not entirely comparable. ↩

23. The information relates only to those firms registered with the ICAEW. Information for the largest 9 ICAEW firms is drawn from information supplied to us by those firms. ↩

24. All tables show actual numbers except where that data is unavailable. Where actual values are not available it is then shown in percentages. ↩

File

Name Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession - June 2014

Publication date 27 September 2023

Type Report

Format PDF, 1.2 MB

Download original