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 Professim 2006 (2)

Financial Reporting Council Aldwych House 71-91 Aldwych London WC2B 4HN Telephone 020 7492 2300 E-mail [email protected]

CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD

This is the fourth edition of ‘Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession'. This document provides statistical information up to 31st December 2005 for the six chartered accountancy bodies¹ who are members of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB). It includes information for many of the largest registered audit firms who audit UK public interest entities.

All members of the CCAB have a Royal Charter and the titles their members use are therefore protected. It is, however, misleading to equate the CCAB to the accountancy profession in the UK. There are a number of other UK bodies whose members provide accountancy and related services and which set regulatory requirements for their members. These include the Association of International Accountants (AIA), the Institute of Financial Accountants (IFA) and the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT).

This document summarises the main features and trends of the following statistical information:

Members of the six chartered bodies
Students of the six chartered bodies
The income, costs and staffing of the six chartered bodies
Fee income of the largest UK audit firms
Number and size of audit registered firms

The purpose is simply to provide information, not to offer explanations or interpretations, other than to refer to possible limitations of the data.

The information we are publishing illustrates the underlying health and importance of the accountancy profession in the UK, with the overall numbers of students and members continuing to grow.

Most of the information we are publishing is comparable to the information published in previous editions. However, there are a number of changes, largely reflecting comments received on the information in previous editions. We would welcome comments on what information you think may improve future editions. Your comments should be sent to Tracy Neilson [email protected].

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the unified independent regulator for the accounting, audit and actuarial profession and for accounting, auditing and actuarial standard setting and enforcement. Within the FRC, the Professional Oversight Board is the operating body responsible for:

Independent oversight of the regulation of the auditing profession by the recognised supervisory and qualifying bodies
Monitoring of the quality of the auditing function in relation to economically significant entities
Independent oversight of the regulation of the accountancy profession by the professional accountancy bodies.
Independent oversight of the regulation of the actuarial profession by the professional actuarial bodies and promoting high quality actuarial work.

There is more information on the FRC and its operating bodies at www.frc.org.uk.

Sir John Bourn Chairman of the Professional Oversight Board November 2006

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS

THE SIX CHARTERED ACCOUNTANCY BODIES 2000-2005

Accountancy continues to flourish and grow in the UK. The six chartered bodies have over 260,000 members and over 155,000 students in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. (Table 1 and Chart 1, and Table 8)
The six bodies have over 350,000 members and over 365,000 students worldwide. The average growth of members of 3.6% per annum between 2000 and 2005. (Table 2 and Chart 2, and Table 7)
Student numbers have been growing more quickly (6.7% per year worldwide) than membership (3.6% per year worldwide, 3.0% in the UK and ROI) (Tables 1 and 2 and Table 7). This finding is consistent with the growth of the numbers of members and students in the prior year.
There are significant differences between the bodies in terms of the number of worldwide members and students, the location of members and students, growth rates of the bodies' populations and the age profile of members and students.
There has been a steadily rising proportion of female members since 2000 – from 24% to 29% in 2005. (Table 5)
The percentage of female students has been stable since 2000 but is still considerably higher (48%), than the percentage of female members (29%). (Table 5 and Table 10)

THE AUDIT FIRMS

The significant decline in the ratio of non-audit services provision to audit clients and to non-audit clients between 2002/3 and 2003/4 (Charts 17 and 18) did not continue in 2004/5, with the proportions of total fee income from audit, non-audit work to audit clients, and non-audit work to non-audit clients similar for 2003/4 and 2004/5 (Charts 18 and 19)
There has been a significant change in the split of fee income between audit work and non audit work for the major audit firms outside the Big 4 between 2002/3 and 2004/5. Over this period their fee income from non audit work to non-audit clients has been an increasing proportion of total fee income, with a corresponding reduction in the proportion of audit fee income. Fee income from non-audit work to audit clients has remained stable as a percentage of the total (Charts 20-22)
There was an 11.5% decline in the numbers of firms registered to carry out statutory audit in the UK at most of the Bodies between 2001 and 2005. This is likely to be as a result of changes to the audit thresholds. (Table 17)

MEMBERS OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Members in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2000-2005

Table 1 shows the number of members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
45,392	42,717	13,176	103,478	10,721	12,857	228,341
49,085	44,979	13,192	105,804	11,196	12,870	237,126
52,678	46,820	13,213	108,157	11,840	13,004	245,712
54,209	48,986	13,223	110,468	12,186	13,312	252,384
56,837	51,386	13,266	110,776	12,757	13,811	258,833
59,059	53,697	13,317	111,114	13,523	14,255	264,965

% growth (00-05)	30.1	25.7	1.1	7.4	26.1	10.9	16.0
% compound annual growth (00-05)	5.4	4.7	0.2	1.4	4.8	2.1	3.0

Table 1

The total number of members of the six bodies in the UK and ROI has grown steadily in recent years, at an average rate of 3.0%, from just over 228,000 in 2000 to nearly 265,000 at the end of 2005.
There are significant differences within that overall percentage growth, between the Chartered bodies. The ACCA's membership in the UK and ROI grew most strongly at an average of 5.4% per year in the period, followed by the ICAI and CIMA. The growth pattern displayed is consistent with that seen at the end of 2004.
The ICAEW is the largest body in terms of its UK and ROI membership – its average growth rate per year in the period 2000-2005 was 1.4%.

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies. This may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Members in the UK and Republic of Ireland 2000-2005 This chart illustrates the number of members of ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in the UK and Republic of Ireland for the years 2000-2005. Each year's data for each body is represented by a different coloured bar.

Chart 1

Members Worldwide, 2000-2005

Table 2 shows the number of members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies worldwide at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
79,027	54,934	13,396	118,771	11,828	14,888	292,844
86,929	57,616	13,471	121,356	12,515	15,042	306,929
95,416	59,782	13,521	123,719	13,039	15,166	320,643
98,293	62,361	13,510	125,643	13,551	15,749	329,107
104,613	65,053	13,499	126,597	14,193	15,931	339,886
109,588	67,670	13,565	127,826	14,973	16,388	350,010

% growth (00-05)	38.7	23.2	1.3	7.6	26.6	10.1	19.5
% compound annual growth (00-05)	6.8	4.3	0.3	1.5	4.8	1.9	3.6

Table 2

The total membership number of members of the six bodies worldwide has grown on average more quickly than UK/ROI membership alone (3.6% compared with 3.0% compound annual growth)
This reflects the strong growth of the ACCA globally, which in 2005 had 46% of its members outside UK/ROI (2000: 43%) and had annualised compound growth of 6.8% in the period (5.4% UK/ROI alone).
The other bodies have a much smaller percentage of their members based overseas (see Table 3). Most of their growth therefore has come from the increases in their UK/ROI membership.

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies. This may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

A Graph to show Members Worldwide 2000-2005 This chart illustrates the number of members worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS for the years 2000-2005. Each year's data for each body is represented by a different coloured bar.

Chart 2

Members outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland, 2000-2005

Table 3 shows the number of members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
2000	33,635	12,217	220	15,293	1,107	2,031	64,503
2001	37,844	12,637	279	15,552	1,319	2,172	69,803
2002	42,738	12,962	308	15,562	1,199	2,162	74,931
2003	44,084	13,375	287	14,573	1,365	2,167	75,851
2004	47,776	13,667	233	15,821	1,436	2,120	81,053
2005	50,529	13,973	248	16,712	1,450	2,133	85,045
% of total members outside UK/ROI 2005	46	21	2	13	10	13	24

Table 3

The ACCA has increased its membership outside UK/ROI by 50% since 2000. This compares to a 30% rise in membership numbers in the UK and ROI for the same period. In 2005 46% of the ACCA's members were registered outside the UK and ROI compared to 43% in 2000.
Apart from the ACCA, only CIMA has more than 20% of its members based outside UK/ROI.
The above figures show that the ICAEW's membership is growing faster outside of the UK/ROI than in the UK/ROI. Percentage growth between 2004 and 2005 outside of the UK/ROI was 5.6% compared to 1.0% in the UK/ROI.

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies. This may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Sectoral employment of members worldwide, 2005:

Table 4 shows the percentages of members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies worldwide, according to their sectoral employment at the end of 2005.

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
Public practice	28	4	0	43	32	28	23
Industry and Commerce	54	71	0	40	61¹	41	45
Public Sector	10	17	67	2	-	4	17
Retired	4	6	22	12	5	19	11
Other ⁶	4	2	11	3	2	8	5
TOTAL	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Table 4

There are no CIPFA members and very few CIMA members employed in public practice in 2005. Over 70% of CIMA members were employed in industry and commerce and 67% of CIPFA members were employed in the public sector.
The ICAEW is the only body with more members employed in public practice than any other employment category listed in Table 4 above.

Note: There are variations in the way in which the bodies classify employment.

Gender of members worldwide, 2000-2005:

Table 5 shows the percentage of female members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies worldwide at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
2000	33	21	23	19	23	20	24
2001	35	22	24	19	25	21	25
2002	36	23	24	20	24	22	26
2003	38	24	25	21	27	23	27
2004	39	26	26	21	28	24	28
2005	40	27	26	22	29	25	29

Table 5

The percentage of female members of all six bodies has been rising in recent years.
Taking all the bodies together the percentage of female members has risen from 24% in 2000 to 29% as at the end of 2005.
The ACCA had the greatest percentage growth in female members from 33% in 2000 to 40% in 2005.

Age of members worldwide: 2005

Table 6 shows the number of members of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies worldwide by age at 31st December

Chart 3 shows this information in a graphic format. Charts 4 to 9 compare the age distribution for each body at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
under 25	582	23	1	157	3	82	848
25-34	36,862	13,084	1,269	25,279	4,870	3,843	85,207
35-44	39,696	24,328	4,111	35,900	5,028	3,844	112,907
45-54	18,795	15,493	3,682	28,677	2,770	3,446	72,863
55-64	8,662	8,486	2,893	21,410	1,334	2,457	45,242
65 and over	4,991	6,256	1,609	16,403	968	2,716	32,943
TOTAL	109,588	67,670	13,565	127,826	14,973	16,388	350,010

Table 6

There are marked differences in the age profile of members of the six bodies. For example, the ACCA has the youngest population of members - 70% of members are below 45. ICAI has the second youngest population with approximately 67% below 45. (Chart 3)
In contrast 60% of CIPFA's members are 45 and over. The ICAEW and the ICAS both have approximately 50% of their members above the age of 45 (Chart 3).
The age of the ICAI's members has risen in 2005 compared to 2000 (Chart 3); 67% of members in 2005 were aged 35 and over compared to 58% in 2000 (Chart 8).
The age profile of members of the ACCA, CIMA, the ICAEW and the ICAS has increased between 2000 and 2005.

Comparison of Age Profiles of Members of Accountancy Bodies 2005

This chart shows the percentage distribution of members across different age bands (under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in 2005.

Chart 3

Age of Members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies, 2000 and 2005:

The following charts compare the age distribution of members of the bodies for 2000 and 2005.

Age of ACCA Members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of ACCA members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 4

Age of CIMA Members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of CIMA members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 5

Age of CIPFA Members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of CIPFA members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 6

Age of ICAEW members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of ICAEW members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 7

Age of ICAI members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of ICAI members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 8

Age of the ICAS members 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of ICAS members in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over.

Chart 9

STUDENTS OF THE ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Students registered worldwide, 2000-2005:

Table 7 shows the number of students of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies registered worldwide at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

	ACCA ²	CIMA ³	CIPFA	ICAEW ⁴, ⁵	ICAI ⁴	ICAS ⁴	TOTAL
2000	174,201	73,761	2,213	10,727	2,789	1,652	265,343
2001	185,392	75,263	2,322	10,114	3,008	2,080	278,179
2002	205,099	77,923	2,484	9,648	3,392	2,327	300,801
2003	221,261	81,590	2,782	8,694	3,000	2,431	319,683
2004	240,741	84,868	2,954	8,910	3,167	2,497	343,137
2005	260,644	86,565	3,194	10,406	3,880	2,636	367,325
% growth (00–05)	49.6	17.4	44.3	-3.0	39.1	59.6	38.4
% compound annual growth (00–05)	8.4	3.3	7.6	-0.6	6.8	9.8	6.7

Table 7

There are wide differences in the numbers and rates of growth in the student membership worldwide of the accountancy bodies.
It should be noted that the figures for the different bodies are not all strictly comparable see footnotes below.
Overall student numbers continue to grow (7% in 2005) reflecting the health of the profession. The ICAS and the ACCA continue to experience the highest growth rates over the period as a whole.

Note:

Location of students, 2005:

Table 8 shows the location (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six chartered accountancy bodies at 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland	79,513	57,197	3,122	9,928	3,880	2,633	156,273
Rest of the world	181,131	29,368	72	478	-	3	211,052
TOTAL	260,644	86,565	3,194	10,406	3,880	2,636	367,325

Table 8

The overwhelming majority (greater than 95%) of students of four of the bodies – CIPFA, the ICAEW, the ICAI and the ICAS are based in the UK and the ROI.
In contrast the ACCA and CIMA have a significantly higher proportion of students outside the UK and the ROI (69.5% and 33.9% respectively) compared to the proportion of members outside UK and the ROI (the ACCA = 46.1% and CIMA = 20.6% - see Table 3).

Note: The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies. This may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Age of Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide, 2005:

This chart compares the age distributions for the six chartered accountancy bodies.

Comparison of Age Profiles of Students of the Accountancy Bodies 2005

This chart shows the percentage distribution of students across different age bands (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in 2005.

Chart 10

The chart above shows that CIPFA and CIMA have an older student age profile than the other bodies. Both bodies have over 25% of students 35 years and over. ACCA has the next oldest student profile with just under 20% 35 years and older.
In contrast, at least 99% of students at the ICAEW, the ICAI and the ICAS are younger than 35.
Charts 11-13 compare the age distribution of students for 2000 and 2005 for the ACCA, CIPFA and CIMA. This data is not available for the year 2000 for the other bodies.
The number of CIPFA students aged 35 and over was higher in 2005 than 2000 by 12 percentage points. The ACCA has also seen a significant increase (9 percentage points) in students aged 35 and over (Charts 11 and 13).

Notes 1. ACCA and ICAEW figures relate to the age of the student intake, not the ages of all students.

Age of Students of three of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies, 2000 and 2005:

The following charts compare the age distribution of students of three bodies at 31st December 2000 and

Data as at December 2000 are not available for the remaining bodies.

The Change in Age Profile for ACCA students 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of ACCA students in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

Chart 11

The Change in Age Profile of CIMA Students for 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of CIMA students in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

Chart 12

The Change in Age Profile of CIPFA Students for 2000 and 2005

This bar chart compares the percentage age distribution of CIPFA students in 2000 and 2005 across age categories: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

Chart 13

Sectoral employment of students worldwide, 2005

Table 9 shows the sectoral employment of students of each of the accountancy bodies worldwide at 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA¹	CIPFA⁶	ICAEW²	ICAI	ICAS³	TOTAL
Public practice	74,804	-	-	9,525	3,788	2,545	90,662
Industry and commerce	151,514	73,701	-	285	77	91	225,668
Public sector	27,497	10,062	3,052	-	15	-	40,626
Other⁴	6,829	2,802	142	596	-	-	10,369
TOTAL	260,644	86,565	3,194	10,406	3,880	2,636	367,325

Table 9

Over 90% of the student members of the ICAEW, the ICAI and the ICAS are employed in public practice. This compares to 29% of the ACCA's student population.
In contrast 96% of CIPFA students are employed in the public sector.
ACCA students are the most widely spread across the different sectors of the profession.

Gender of students worldwide, 2000-2005

Table 10 shows the percentage of female students of each of the accountancy bodies worldwide at the 31 December for each of the six years to 31st December 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
2000	51	42	46	45	49	46	48
2001	51	42	47	45	54	46	48
2002	51	43	48	45	52	46	49
2003	51	43	49	45	54	43	49
2004	50	43	50	44	54	44	48
2005	50	44	49	41	54	44	48

Table 10

The proportion of female students worldwide has remained stable between 2000 and 2005 for all Chartered bodies. The most notable movement is for the ICAI where the number of female students has increased by 5% over the five year period.

Note: ICAI and ICAS figures refer to the proportion of females in the student intake, not in the student body as a whole.

Graduate entrants to training with the Six Chartered Accountancy Bodies

Chart 14 shows the percentages of students of each body who, at the time of registration as students, respectively (i) were graduates and (ii) were graduates and held a relevant degree.

It should be noted that differences in the educational qualifications of those entering the various training schemes are often a reflection of the selection policies adopted by different employers rather than the result of the strategy of a body.

Percentage of students holding a degree and those holding a relevant degree¹

This chart shows, for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS, the percentage of students holding a degree and the percentage holding a relevant degree.

Chart 14

Notes 1. The figures are based on students worldwide 2. The accountancy bodies' definitions of a "relevant degree" are as follows:

ACCA: Accountancy, Business
CIMA: Business Studies, Business Administration, Finance, Accountancy
CIPFA: Accountancy
ICAEW: Accountancy, Business Degrees, Finance
ICAI: Accountancy, Business &amp; Commerce, Finance
ICAS: Accountancy.

The ICAEW, the ICAI and the ICAS have a significantly higher percentage of students with a degree than the other accountancy bodies.
Comparisons of the percentage of students holding “relevant degrees” are difficult to make, because the accountancy bodies use different definitions of a “relevant degree” (see above)

Pass Rates

Table 11 shows:

the percentage of overall passes at the final examination stage for the year 2005
the percentage of those overall passes at the final examination stage which are first time passes
of those first time passes the number of students who have had at least one exemption at any stage of the process

	ACCA	CIPFA	CIMA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS
Proportion of overall passes at the final examination	59%	65%	39%	73%	81%	72%
Proportion of overall passes that are first time passes	63%	69%	45%	76%	77%	Not available
Proportion of students with first time passes who took advantage of one or more exemption	80%	Not available	80%	Not available	88%	Not available

Table 11

The percentage of overall passes is higher for the ICAI and the ICAS than for the other bodies.
For all bodies where information is available over half of the passes at the final examination were first time passes.
Of those with first time passes a significant majority had at least one exemption for an examination at an earlier stage of the process.

Notes: 1. CIPFA, ICAEW and ICAS do not produce information on the number of first time passers who had at least one exemption. 2. Information is not generally available on pass rates at earlier stages of the examination process.

OTHER INFORMATION ON THE SIX CHARTERED ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Income of the Six Chartered Accountancy Bodies, 2000-2005

Table 12 shows the income of each of the six chartered accountancy bodies over the period 2000 to 2005

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI ⁵	ICAS	TOTAL
2000	34.9	23	24.8	53.8	7.6	10.7	154.8
2001	41	25.6	29	54	8.1	13.3	171
2002	46	27.1	32.8	44.3	10.6	13.9	174.7
2003	55.5	27.2	36.1	47.1	12.8	14.1	192.8
2004	59.7	29.8	37.2	52.2	13.9	14.1	206.9
2005	72.1	33.8	37.5	60.9	15.7	15.7	235.7

Table 12

Notes 1. The ICAI income has been converted from Euros at the year end rates 2. All income figures are £m

Income of the Six Chartered Bodies between 2000 and 2005

This line chart shows the income in £m for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS from 2000 to 2005.

Chart 15

The fall in the ICAEW's income between 2001 and 2002 was as a result of the sale of ABG Professional information.
Chart 16 and Table 12 show the most significant increase in income is for the ACCA where income has risen at a rate of 15.6% each year. This is in large part explained by the increase in number of members and students by 6.8% and 8.4% per annum respectively.

Income versus costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31st December 2005

This bar chart compares income and costs (in £m) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS for the year ended 31st December 2005.

Chart 16

Staffing of the Six Chartered Accountancy Bodies, 2000–2005

Table 13 shows the number of staff (full time equivalent) employed by the six chartered accountancy bodies over the period 2000 to 2005:

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
2000	295	223	242	471	84	132	1,447
2001	348	240	278	541	87	137	1,631
2002	487	235	302	425	95	137	1,681
2003	571	239	335	428⁷	104	135	1,812
2004	640	238	321	491	104	137	1,931
2005	694	246	313	538	104	135	2,030

Table 13

The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI has increased by 40% since 2000. Most of that increase is accounted for by ACCA which has more than doubled its headcount.

Notes: 1. Figures for ICAEW up to and including 2003 do not include staff whose employment costs are borne by the Quality Assurance Directorate, or staff whose employment costs are borne by the Chartered Accountants' Trust for Education and Research, which together total 58 staff as at the end of 2003. 2. The drop in staff numbers for ICAEW between 2001 and 2002 is due to its sale of ABG Professional Information.

AUDIT FIRMS

Introductory Note: Major Audit Firms

Tables 14 to 16 show fee income for audit and non-audit services for many of the largest registered audit firms with clients who are defined as UK public interest entities. That information is analysed in Charts 17 to 22, differentiating the “Big 4” from the other large audit firms. Firms have been listed in order of fee income from audit, rather than total fee income.

The 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 have adopted LLP status must publish accounts which meet the requirements of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000.

The tables should not be seen as league tables. Not all the firms we approached were willing to disclose information on fee income or considered that they could provide reliable enough information in the desired form. It is likely therefore that there are firms not included in the tables which have a higher audit fee income than some of those which are shown. Also, we have not included accountancy firms which are not registered as statutory auditors.

One issue which led to public debate and consideration following the US accountancy scandals of Enron and WorldCom was the provision of non audit services to audit clients. This led to a new ethical standard on non-audit services produced by the Auditing Practices Board and to new guidance for listed companies in the Combined Code on the purchase of non audit services from a company's auditors.

Against that background we think that it is in the public interest to try to provide an analysis of the fee income of the large audit firms into three categories: income from audit, income from the provision of non-audit services to audit clients and income from the provision of non-audit services to non-audit clients. It would be wrong, however, to make detailed comparisons between firms using the information in Tables 14 to

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

Key Points: Major Audit Firms

Charts 17-19 show the changes in the split of fee income for Big 4 firms for the three years to 2004/5, based on the detailed information in the fee income tables. Charts 20-22 show the equivalent percentages for the major audit firms outside the Big 4.
There was a significant decline between 2002/3 and 2003/4 for the Big 4 firms in the proportion of their total income from the provision of non-audit services to audit clients. There was a corresponding increase in the proportion derived from the provision of non-audit services to non-audit clients, with audit fee income remaining as a constant proportion. (Charts 17 and 18).
However, there was not a further shift in 2004/5. The proportions of total fee income for the Big 4 from audit, non-audit work to audit clients, and non-audit work to non-audit clients did not change significantly between 2003/4 and 2004/5 (Charts 18 and 19)
There was a significant change in the split of fee income between audit work and non audit work for the major audit firms outside the Big 4 between 2002/3 and 2004/5 with the provision of non-audit services to non-audit clients increasing from 46% of total income to 52%. (Charts 20 to 22)
There was a corresponding reduction in the proportion of total fee income from audit for the major audit firms outside the Big 4, with fee income from non-audit work to audit clients remaining stable as a percentage of the total (Charts 20 to 22).
The percentage growth of total fee income for the Big 4 was greater between 2004 and 2005 than between 2003 and 2004, reflecting in particular a large percentage growth in Big 4 fee income. (Table 17)

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2005 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals ⁸	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals ⁹	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers	LLP	30-Jun-05	755	267	346	1,780.0	496.0	456.0	828.0
KPMG¹⁰	LLP	30-Sept-05	560	256	328	1,280.0	357.0	295.0	629.0
Ernst & Young	LLP	30-Jun-05	408	147	201	945.0	299.0¹¹	154.0	492.0
Deloitte & Touche	LLP	31-May-05	591	193	197	1,355.5	290.7	194.4	870.4
Grant Thornton	LLP	30-Jun-05	240	99	106	255.8	55.8	36.1	163.9
BDO Stoy Hayward	LLP	30-Jun-05	209	102	130	208.4	51.9	51.4	105.1
PKF¹²	LLP¹³	31-Mar-05	98	NA¹⁴	52	113.7	47.5	30.9	35.3
Baker Tilly	Partnership	31-Mar-05	258	155	155	165.4	46.2	36.3	82.9
Mazars	LLP	31-Aug-05	80	54	54	64.9	27.0	10.0	27.9
RSM Robson Rhodes	LLP	30-Apr-05	85	36	39	85.6	19.2	11.1	55.3
Horwath Clark Whitehill	LLP	31-Mar-05	60	41	41	35.3	12.7	13.8	8.8
Moore Stephens	LLP¹⁵	30-Apr-05	59	26	26	37.3	11.9	3.4	22.0
Tenon Audit¹⁶	Ltd Company	30-Jun-05	4	3	57	10.7	10.7	0.0¹⁷	0.0
Bentley Jennison	Partnership	31-Dec-05	64	29	40	44.4	10.5	7.5	26.4
HLB Vantis Audit plc¹⁸	Plc	31-May-05¹⁹	11	8	25	9.1	9.1	0.0²⁰	0.0
Smith & Williamson²¹	Ltd Company	30-Apr-05	78	21	21	45.8	8.6	NA	37.2
Macintyre Hudson	LLP	31-Mar-05	41	30	NA	21.3	8.4	NA	NA
Chantrey Vellacott	Partnership	30-Jun-05	48	25	25	22.9	8.2	2.7	12.0
Kingston Smith	Partnership	30-Apr-05	41	38	NA	22.5	7.0	5.8	9.7
UHY Hacker Young	Group of Partnerships	30-Apr-05	63	45	47	26.2	6.9	3.7	15.6
Menzies	Partnership	31-Mar-05	32	25	23	22.4	4.5	8.5	9.4
Scott Moncrieff	Partnership	30-Apr-05	21	11	11	10.9	4.3	1.5	5.1
Cooper Parry	LLP	30-Apr-05	22	11	13²²	12.3	3.9	3.2	5.2
Saffery Champness	Partnership	31-Mar-05	53	32	32	24.7	3.0	7.0	14.7
Wilkins Kennedy	Partnership	30-Apr-05	34	26	26	15.1	2.9	3.4	8.8
Chiene & Tait	Scottish Partnership	30-Sept-05	7	4	4	5.7	1.6	0.5	3.6
Jeffreys Henry	LLP²³	30-Apr-05	8	5	5	3.8	1.0	0.6	2.2
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-05	34	6	0	15.5	0.89	NA	NA
Begbies Everett Chettle²⁴	Partnership	31-Mar-05	5	3	3	0.89	0.34	NA	0.53

Table 14

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals²⁵	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals²⁶	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Jeffreys Henry	LLP	30-Apr-05	8	5	5	3.8	1.0	0.6	2.2
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-05	34	6	0	15.5	0.89	NA	NA
Begbies Everett Chettle	Partnership	31-Mar-05	5	3	3	0.89	0.34	NA	0.53

Table 14

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2004

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals²⁷	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals²⁸	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers²⁹	LLP	30-Jun-04	752	269	350	1583.0	438.0	405.0	740.0
KPMG³⁰	LLP	30-Sep-04	549	247	353	1,066.0	306.0	270.0	490.0
Deloitte & Touche	LLP	31-May-04	589	201	205	1,246.3	259.0	177.2	810.1
Ernst & Young	LLP	30-Jun-04	391	148	195	825.0³¹	241.0	168.0	416.0
BDO Stoy Hayward	LLP	30-Jun-04	209	105³²	115³³	187.9	84.1	33.7	70.1
Grant Thornton	LLP	30-Jun-04	241	106	108	234.0	58.0	41.0	135.0
Baker Tilly	Partnership	31-Mar-04	261	NA³⁴	NA	160.0	50.0	30.0	80.0

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2004

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals²⁷	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals²⁸	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PKF³⁵	LLP	31-Mar-04	101	NA	NA	110.0	46.5	30.0	33.5
Mazars	LLP	31-Aug-04	75	54	54	62.8³⁶	24.8	10.1	28.6
RSM Robson Rhodes	LLP	30-Apr-04	93	30	33	75.2	14.1	7.3	53.9
Horwath Clark Whitehill	LLP	31-Mar-04	59	NA	NA	35.6	13.9	12.2	9.5
Moore Stephens³⁷	LLP	30-Apr-04	60	26	26	36.9	10.6	3.5	22.8
Tenon Audit³⁸	Ltd Company	30-Jun-04	9	NA	NA	10.0	10.0	0.0³⁹	0.0
Bentley Jennison	Partnership	31-Dec-04	56	NA	NA	38.1	9.5	6.5	22.1
HLB Vantis Audit⁴⁰	Plc	31-Mar-04	11	8	25	8.4	8.4	0.0³⁹	0.0

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2004

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals²⁷	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals²⁸	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Smith & Williamson⁴¹	Company	30-Apr-04	77	23	23	46.6	8.3	NA	38.3
Macintyre Hudson	LLP	31-Mar-04	41	30	NA	20.0	8.3	NA	NA
Chantrey Vellacott	Partnership	30-Jun-04	50	NA	NA	19.9	7.5	2.5	10.0
UHY Hacker Young	Group of Partnerships	30-Apr-04	67	NA	NA	24.0	6.9	2.8	14.3
Kingston Smith	Partnership	30-Apr-04	42	NA	NA	20.3	6.5	5.3	8.5
Menzies	Partnership	31-Mar-04	31	27	22	21.5	4.3	8.0	9.2
Scott Moncrieff	Partnership	30-Apr-04	32	13	13	10.5	4.3	1.4	4.8
Cooper Parry	LLP	30-Apr-04	20	7	9	11.3	3.8	3.2	4.4
Wilkins Kennedy	Partnership	30-Apr-04	33	26	27	14.3	3.4	3.1	7.8
Saffery Champness	Partnership	31-Mar-04	50	28	28	23.7	2.8	6.9	13.8
Chiene & Tait	Scottish Partnership	30-Sep-04	7	4	4	5.3	1.5	0.4	3.4

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2004

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals²⁷	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals²⁸	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Partnership
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-04	34	NA	NA	11.9	0.85	0.85	10.2
Jeffreys Henry⁴²	LLP	30-Apr-04	8	5	5	3.4	0.8	0.6	2.0
Begbies Everett Chettle⁴³	Partnership	31-Mar-04	5	3	3	0.91	0.34	NA	0.56

Table 15

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2003

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals⁴⁴	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals⁴⁵	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers⁴⁶	LLP	30-Jun-03	779	280	360	1,505.0	426.0	429.0	650.0
KPMG⁴⁷	LLP	30-Sep-03	551	255	346	1,008.0	291.0	282.0	435.0
Deloitte & Touche	LLP	31-May-03	575	215	222	1,187.9	260.0	211.9	716.0
Ernst & Young	LLP	30-Jun-03	400	151	192	812.0	226.0	197.0	389.0
BDO Stoy Hayward	LLP	30-Jun-03	199	106⁴⁸	113⁴⁹	169.4	82.2	37.1	50.1
Baker Tilly	Partnership	31-Mar-03	NA⁵⁰	NA	NA	150.0	59.0	35.0	56.0
Grant Thornton	LLP	30-Jun-03	NA	NA	NA	216.0	58.0	37.0	121.0

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2003

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals⁴⁴	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals⁴⁵	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PKF⁵¹	LLP	31-Mar-03	NA	NA	NA	107.4	45.6	29.6	32.2
Mazars	LLP	31-Aug-03	80	53	53	60.8	23.5	10.9	26.3
Moore Stephens⁵²	LLP	30-Apr-03	60	27	27	35.3	10.2	3.7	21.4
Tenon Audit⁵³	Ltd Company	30-Jun-03	NA	NA	NA	10.0	10.0	0.0⁵⁴	0.0
RSM Robson Rhodes	LLP	30-Apr-03	NA	NA	NA	65.8	10.0	5.8	50.1
HLB Vantis Audit⁵⁵	Plc	31-Mar-03	11	8	25	NA	7.2	0.0⁵⁴	0.0
Chantrey Vellacott	Partnership	30-Jun-03	NA	NA	NA	19.0	7.1	2.4	9.5
Kingston Smith	Partnership	30-Apr-03	NA	NA	NA	20.0	6.6	5.4	8.0
UHY Hacker Young	Group of Partnerships	30-Apr-03	NA	NA	NA	22.5	6.5	2.6	13.4

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2003

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals⁴⁴	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals⁴⁵	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Bentley Jennison	Partnership	31-Dec-03	NA	NA	NA	27.0	6.0	4.0	17.0
Cooper Parry	LLP	30-Apr-03	21	9	11⁵⁶	10.4	4.0	3.1	3.4
Menzies	Partnership	31-Mar-03	31	28	24	18.6	3.9	7.0	7.7
Wilkins Kennedy	Partnership	30-Apr-03	30	24	25	12.5	3.6	2.6	6.3
Saffery Champness	Partnership	31-Mar-03	48	26	26	23.2	3.5	5.3	13.4
Smith & Williamson⁵⁷	Company	30-Apr-03	81	25	25	20.2	3.3	NA	16.9
Chiene & Tait	Scottish Partnership	30-Sep-03	6	3	3	4.9	1.7	0.4	2.8
Armstrong Watson	Partnership	31-Mar-03	NA	NA	NA	11.6	1.2	1.2	9.1
Jeffreys Henry⁵⁸	LLP	30-Apr-03	10	7	7	3.5	0.8	0.6	2.1
Horwath Clark Whitehill	LLP	31-Mar-03	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

FEE INCOME OF MAJOR AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2003

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name	Structure	Year End	No of Principals⁴⁴	No of Audit Principals	No of responsible individuals⁴⁵	Total Fee Income (£m)	Fee Income: Audit (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m)	Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Macintyre Hudson	LLP	31-Mar-03	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Begbies Everett Chettle⁵⁹	Partnership	31-Mar-03	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Scott Moncrieff	Partnership	30-Apr-03	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Table 16

BIG FOUR FIRMS

Chart 17: Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income 2002-3

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 27% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 25% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 48%

Chart 18: Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income 2003-4

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 26% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 21% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 53%

Chart 19: Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income 2004-5

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 27% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 21% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 52%

NON BIG FOUR FIRMS WHO AUDIT UK PUBLIC INTEREST ENTITIES

Chart 20: Analysis of Non Big 4 Fee Income 2002-3

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 35% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 19% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 46%

Chart 21: Analysis of Non Big 4 Fee Income 2003-4

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 33% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 18% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 49%

Chart 22: Analysis of Non Big 4 Fee Income 2004-5

Pie chart showing the breakdown of fee income: - Audit Fee Income (£m): 29% - Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 19% - Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients: 52%

Growth of Total Fee Income:

Table 17 shows the growth rate of total fee income between 2003 and 2004 and 2004 and 2005 for many of the largest registered audit firms with clients who are defined as UK public interest entities. This information is split further between the Big 4 audit firms and the largest firms outside the Big 4.

	2004 - 2005	2003-2004
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients⁶⁰	12.38	5.79
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the Big 4 firms	13.49	4.66
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the non Big 4 firms	7.70	10.81

Table 17

The overall growth rate of total fee income was higher between 2004 and 2005 than between 2003 and 2004. This reflects the percentage growth of total fee income of the Big 4.
The percentage growth rate for the Big 4 firms between 2004 and 2005 is nearly double that of the non Big 4.
The percentage growth rate for the non Big 4 firms between 2003 and 2004 is more than double that of the Big 4.

Audit Fee Income per Responsible Individual:

Table 18 illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI) for 2003 to

This information is split further between the Big 4 audit firms and the largest firms outside the Big 4.

£M	2005	2004	2003
Audit fee income per RI for largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients⁶¹	0.55	0.53	0.51
Audit fee income per RI for the Big 4 firms	1.37	1.23	1.09
Audit fee income per RI for the non Big 4 firms	0.32	0.33	0.32

Table 18

Audit fee income generated per responsible individual has grown between 2003 and 2005. Table 18 shows this growth is greater for the Big 4 firms than for other firms
The audit fee income generated per responsible individual for the non Big 4 firms remained more or less constant between 2003 and 2005.

Concentration of Listed Companies' Audits:

Table 19 illustrates the percentages of the number of audits undertaken by the Big 4, the next 5 firms and other audit firms for UK equity listed companies as at March 2005 and March 2006.

	Big 4 %		NEXT 5 %		others %
	Mar 05	Mar 06	Mar 05	Mar 06	Mar 05	Mar 06
FTSE 100	100	99.0	0	1.0	0	0
FTSE 250	96.8	96.4	2.0	3.2	1.2	0.4
Other Main Market	78.7	77.2	14.5	15.7	6.7	7.1
All Main Market	83.5	83.0	11.2	11.9	5.3	5.1

Table 19

Source: Audit Inspection Unit

NUMBER OF FIRMS REGISTERED WITH RECOGNISED SUPERVISORY BODIES

No of Principals in Firm	ACCA	ICAEW	ICAI	ICAS	TOTAL
1	2,170	2,822	679	166	5,837
2-6	771	2,111	341	157	3,721
7-10	21	147	12	12	192
11-50	6	99	9	7	121
50+	0	14	3	1	18
Total as at 31.12.05	2,968	5,193	1,044	343	9,889
Total as at 31.12.04	3,053	5,475	1,048	374	9,950
Total as at 31.12.03	3,083	6,336	1,046	423	10,888
Total as at 31.12.02	3,112	6,478	1,044	453	11,087
Total as at 31.12.01	2,975	6,671	1,044	482	11,172

Table 20

The statistics illustrate the continuing large number of sole practitioners and small firms providing audit services in the UK and ROI.
There was an 11.5% decline in the numbers of firms registered to carry out statutory audit in the UK between 2001 and 2005. The overall fall in the number of registered firms reflects the increase in the audit threshold, with a decrease in the number of firms requiring audit registration, and also mergers of firms. The exception to this decline is in the numbers registered with the ICAI which have remained constant for the past five years. Changes in the audit threshold in Ireland have been less significant than in the UK. (Table 20).

Note

Principals = partners in a partnership; members in an LLP; directors in a company.

Table 21 analyses fee income of audit firms registered with the ICAEW by size. Note this information is solely for firms registered with the ICAEW.

Audit Firms Registered with ICAEW (August 2006)

Firms ranked by size	Average Total Fee Income (£)	Fee Income Per Partner (£)
1 to 4	1,206,985	1,914
5 to 10	122,266	859
11 to 30	11,533	382
31 to 100	5,525	428
101 to 500	2,467	407
501 to 1000	905	257
1001 to 2000	464	212
2001 to 3000	415	320
3000 to 4000	140	140
4001 to 4977	186	186

Table 21

Table 21 shows the concentration of the largest firms with regard to total fee income and supports the data included in tables 14-16. Over 89% of the total fee income of firm's registered with the ICAEW is attributable to the Big 4.

Audit Firms Registered with ICAEW (August 2006)
Firms ranked by size	Average Total Fee Income (£)	Fee Income Per Partner (£)
1 to 4	1,206,985	1,914
5 to 10	122,266	859
11 to 30	11,533	382
31 to 100	5,525	428
101 to 500	2,467	407
501 to 1000	905	257
1001 to 2000	464	212
2001 to 3000	415	320
3000 to 4000	140	140
4001 to 4977	186	186

Table 21 shows the concentration of the largest firms with regard to total fee income and supports the data included in tables 14-16. Over 89% of the total fee income of firm's registered with the ICAEW is attributable to the Big 4.

The Financial Reporting Council 2006

PROFESSIONAL OVERSIGHT BOARD 5TH FLOOR ALDWYCH HOUSE 71-91 ALDWYCH LONDON WC2B 4HN TEL: +44 (0)20 7492 2300 FAX: +44 (0)20 7492 2301 WEBSITE: www.frc.org.uk/pob

No information was available on the Sectoral employment of CIMA students. ↩↩↩
The ICAEW and the ICAS give a combined figure for students employed in industry and commerce and the public sector. For the purposes of the table these are simply shown as 'industry and commerce'. ↩↩
The ICAEW and the ICAS give a combined figure for students employed in industry and commerce and the public sector. For the purposes of the table these are simply shown as 'industry and commerce'. ↩↩
'Other' includes students not in employment. 'Other' for the ICAEW relates to independent students for whom no information on their employment is available. ↩↩↩↩
The ICAI income has been converted from Euros at the year end rates ↩↩
CIPFA does not separately identify students employed in public practice and they are included within 'Other' in the table above. ↩↩
Figures for ICAEW up to and including 2003 do not include staff whose employment costs are borne by the Quality Assurance Directorate, or staff whose employment costs are borne by the Chartered Accountants' Trust for Education and Research, which together total 58 staff as at the end of 2003. ↩
Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩
Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are able to sign audit reports ↩
Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩
Included US GAAP/GAAS opinion on dual registered clients and regulatory return work on financial services clients. ↩
At 31 March 2005 PKF were a partnership. Subsequent to this PKF became an LLP called PKF(UK)LLP ↩
At 31 March 2005 PKF were a partnership. Subsequent to this PKF became an LLP called PKF(UK)LLP ↩
'NA' means the information was 'Not Available' ↩
All amounts relate to previous partnership (Changed 3 October 2005) ↩
Name changed from Blueprint Audit Limited with effect from 28 February 2005 ↩
Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as these firms only provide audit work ↩
Name changed from HLB AV Audit plc with effect from 31 May 2005 ↩
14 Month period ↩
Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as these firms only provide audit work ↩
Name changed to Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Ltd with effect from 1 May 2006 ↩
Including audit principals ↩
LLP From 1st May 2004 ↩
Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 01 April 2006 ↩
LLP From 1st May 2004 ↩
Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 01 April 2006 ↩
Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩↩↩↩
Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are able to sign audit reports ↩↩↩↩
Fee income figures re-stated in comparison to the 3rd Edition of Key Facts & Trends in line with the change of accounting policy for revenue recognition and a review of the definitions in the APB Ethical Standards 5. ↩
Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩
Fee income figures re-stated in comparison to the 3rd Edition of Key Facts & Trends following a change in accounting policy regarding exclusion of unrealised profit in year end work in progress. ↩
As at 30 November 2004 ↩
As at 30 November 2004 ↩
'NA' means the information was ‘Not Available' ↩
At 31 March 2005 PKF were a partnership. Subsequent to this PKF became an LLP called PKF(UK)LLP ↩
Re-states for application of UITF40 ↩
All amounts relate to previous partnership (Changed 3 October 2005) ↩
Name changed from Blueprint Audit Limited with effect from 28 February 2005 ↩
Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income is nil as these firms only provide audit work ↩↩
Name changed from HLB AV Audit plc with effect from 31 May 2005 ↩
Name changed to Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Ltd with effect from 1 May 2006 ↩
LLP from 1st May 2004 ↩
Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 01 April 2006 ↩
Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩↩↩↩
Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are able to sign audit reports ↩↩↩↩
Fee income figures re-stated in comparison to the 3rd Edition of Key Facts & Trends in line with the change of accounting policy for revenue recognition and a review of the definitions in the APB Ethical Standards 5. ↩
Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩
As at 30 September 2003 ↩
As at 30 September 2003 ↩
'NA' means the information was ‘Not Available' ↩
At 31 March 2005 PKF were a partnership. Subsequent to this PKF became an LLP called PKF(UK)LLP ↩
All amounts relate to previous partnership (Changed 3 October 2005) ↩
Name changed from Blueprint Audit Limited with effect from 28 February 2005 ↩
Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income is nil as these firms only provide audit work ↩↩
Name changed from HLB AV Audit plc with effect from 31 May 2005 ↩
Including audit principals ↩
Name changed to Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Ltd with effect from 1 May 2006 ↩
From 1st May 2004 ↩
Name changed from Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 01 April 2006 ↩
This is based on the information which firms provided to the Oversight Board, and which is shown in the detailed tables on fee income of major audit firms. A few firms did not provide the information. ↩
This is based on the information which firms provided to the Oversight Board, and which is shown in the detailed tables on fee income of major audit firms. A few firms did not provide the information. ↩

Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Professim 2006 (2)

File

Is this page useful?