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 2008

Contents

Chairman's Foreword

This is the sixth edition of ‘Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession'. Consistent with previous editions this document provides statistical information principally for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies1 who are members of the UK Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB), and for most of the larger registered audit firms, for the period up to 31 December

  1. In addition we have included some information specifically relating to audit and the responsibilities of those bodies which offer the recognised professional qualification and those bodies who register and supervise the work of statutory auditors.

All of the CCAB bodies have a Royal Charter and the “Chartered” title their members use is therefore protected. It is, however, misleading to equate the CCAB to the accountancy profession in the UK. There are a number of other bodies in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, whose members provide accountancy and related services, must have passed examinations prior to offering these services and are subject to regulatory requirements.

The purpose of this document is to provide information and, where appropriate, provide some clarification and comment on possible limitations of the data. It is often difficult to make comparisons between the different accountancy bodies or between the audit firms, as a result of a number of factors including differing entry requirements and a different classification of income.

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

  • Members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies;
  • Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies;
  • The income, costs and staffing of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies;
  • Concentration of UK listed companies' audits; and
  • Fee income of the larger UK audit firms;
  • Number and size of audit registered firms.

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

The changes we have made to this edition reflect comments received on information in previous editions. We would welcome further 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.

Further information about the FRC and its operating bodies is available at www.frc.org.uk.

Sir John Bourn Chairman of the Professional Oversight Board July 2008

SECTION ONE MAIN HIGHLIGHTS

One - Main Highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2002 - 2007

  • Accountancy continues to flourish and grow in the UK. The six Chartered bodies have over 275,000 members and over 165,000 students in the UK and Republic of Ireland. (Table 1, Chart 1 and Table 11)
  • The Six Chartered bodies have over 370,000 members and over 390,000 students worldwide. The compound annual growth rate of members between 2002 and 2007 was 3.1% per annum (Table 2, Chart 2 and Table 9)
  • Worldwide, student numbers have been growing more quickly than membership numbers between 2002 and 2007, (compound annual growth in members was 3.1% and compared to 7.9% for students) (Tables 2 and 9)
  • There are significant differences between the bodies in terms of worldwide membership and student populations in size, growth rate and age profile.
  • The number of registered audit firms has been gradually declining. The overall number of audit firms registered in 2002 (11,211) and in 2007 (8,574) has decreased by 23.5%. However, the rate of decline has been less in recent years. (Table 7)
  • In comparison to the high number of students who become members, very few members are awarded with the recognised professional qualification for audit. In 2007, 13,238 students became members, but only 623 members were awarded the recognised professional qualification for audit. (Table 16)

The Audit Firms 2002 - 2007

  • Over the past five years, the Big Four 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 over the same period (Chart 27).
  • There has been a similar trend in the split of fee income for the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four over the past three years. (Chart 28).
  • The trends described above followed the introduction of the Auditing Practices Board's ethical standards and the Smith guidance on the provision of non audit services.
  • Audit fee income per responsible individual in both Big Four and the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four firms has grown in 2007 (Table 23).
  • Table 26 shows that there are more listed companies outside of the FTSE 350 now audited by the non-Big Four firms. This could reflect a gradual opening of the market or may be a result of fee pressure.

SECTION Two MEMBERS OF ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Two - Members of Accountancy Bodies

Members in the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2002 – 2007

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
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
61,386 55,580 13,381 110,894 14,329 14,535 270,105
64,260 58,370 13,400 111,707 15,121 14,903 277,761
22.0 24.7 1.4 3.3 27.7 14.6 13.0
4.1 4.5 0.3 0.6 5.0 2.8 2.5
  • The total number of members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in the UK and the Republic of Ireland has increased steadily in recent years at an average compound annual growth rate of 2.5% from over 245,000 in 2002 to over 275,000 in 2007.
  • There are significant differences in growth rates of the individual bodies. ICAI's membership in the UK and the ROI grew most strongly at an average of 5% per year between 2002 and 2007.
  • The ICAEW continues to be by far the largest body in terms of its UK and ROI membership.

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the Chartered Accountancy Bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Chart 1: Members in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland 2002 - 2007 This bar chart visually represents the data from Table 1, showing the number of members for six Chartered Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS) over the period 2002 to

  1. Each body has a set of six bars representing the years, with distinct colours for each year (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) as indicated in the legend.

The chart illustrates a general growth trend across most bodies, with ICAEW consistently having the highest number of members, maintaining over 100,000 members throughout the period. ACCA and CIMA show significant growth, while CIPFA, ICAI, and ICAS also demonstrate increases, albeit with lower overall member counts compared to ICAEW.

Footnotes:

Members Worldwide 2002 – 2007

Table 2 and Chart 2 show the number of members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide at the end 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2002 95,416 59,782 13,521 123,719 13,039 15,166 320,643
2003 98,293 62,361 13,510 125,643 13,551 15,749 329,107
2004 104,613 65,053 13,499 126,597 14,193 15,931 339,886
2005 109,588 67,670 13,565 127,826 14,973 16,388 350,010
2006 115,345 70,016 13,661 128,416 15,791 16,710 359,939
2007 122,426 73,356 13,689 130,243 16,691 17,083 373,488
% growth (02-07) 28.3 22.7 1.2 5.3 28.0 12.6 16.5
% compound annual growth (02-07) 5.1 4.2 0.2 1.0 5.1 2.4 3.1

Table 2

  • The total worldwide membership for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies has grown more significantly than the UK and Republic of Ireland membership alone. (3.1% compared with 2.5% compound annual growth).
  • The worldwide growth rate is mainly driven by the strong growth of ACCA globally. 47.5% of ACCA's membership is outside of the UK and Republic of Ireland (2007). This compares with 44.8% in 2002.
  • The ICAI has experienced a strong growth rate in total members worldwide. This is explained by its growth in members in the UK & ROI (Table 1). In contrast to ACCA the ICAI only has 9% of its total membership population outside of the UK & ROI (Table 3).
  • All other Chartered Accountancy Bodies have a much smaller percentage of their membership outside of the UK and Republic of Ireland. (Table 3)

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the Chartered Accountancy Bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Chart 2: Members Worldwide 2002 – 2007 The chart shows the number of members in ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS worldwide from 2002 to

  1. ICAEW consistently has the highest number of members, remaining above 100,000 throughout the period. ACCA shows strong growth, increasing from approximately 95,000 to over 120,000 members. CIMA also demonstrates steady growth. CIPFA, ICAI, and ICAS have significantly lower member counts but show general increases.

Members outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2002 – 2007

Table 3 shows the number of members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2002 42,738 12,962 308 15,562 1,199 2,162 74,931
2003 44,084 13,375 287 15,175 1,365 2,437 76,723
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
2006 53,959 14,436 280 17,522 1,462 2,175 89,834
2007 58,166 14,986 289 18,536 1,570 2,180 95,727
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2002 45 22 2 13 9 14 23
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2007 48 20 2 14 9 13 26

Table 3

  • ACCA continues to have the largest percentage of members outside the UK and Republic of Ireland. Otherwise, only CIMA has over 20% of its worldwide membership outside the UK and Republic of Ireland.

Note: The location of members is based on the registered address supplied to the Chartered Accountancy Bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Sectoral employment of members worldwide 2007

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 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI2 ICAS TOTAL
Public Practice 29 2 0 36 33 29 25
Industry & Commerce 54 70 11 42 60 41 51
Public Sector 10 17 64 3 0 3 10
Retired 4 10 23 14 5 19 10
Other3 3 1 2 5 2 8 4
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4

  • At the end of 2007 there were no CIPFA members and very few CIMA members employed in public practice.
  • During 2007 we saw a change in the sectoral employment of members worldwide. The number of worldwide members employed in public practice declined from 28% in 2006 to 25% in 2007. For three of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies above (CIPFA, ICAEW and ICAI) there has been an increase in members employed in industry and commerce from 48% in 2006 to 51% in 2007.

Gender of members worldwide 2002 – 2007

Table 5 shows the percentage of female members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2006 40 28 27 23 31 26 30
2007 41 29 28 23 31 27 31

Table 5

  • The percentage of female members of all six Chartered Accountancy Bodies has risen over the past six years from 26% in 2002 to 31% in 2007.
  • ACCA has the largest percentage of female members whilst the ICAI has had the highest percentage growth in female members between 2002 and 2007.

Age of members worldwide 2007

Table 6 shows the number of members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide by age as at 31 December

  1. Chart 3 shows this information in a graphical format. Charts 4 to 9 compare the age distribution for each body as at 31 December 2002 compared to the age distribution as at 31 December 2007.
ACCA CIMA CIPFA4 ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
Under 25 580 68 8 138 16 41 851
25 - 34 39,338 14,836 1,204 24,138 6,060 4,274 89,850
35 - 44 46,082 26,469 3,879 35,731 5,248 3,896 121,305
45 - 54 20,536 16,374 3,661 29,341 2,962 3,485 76,359
55 - 64 9,590 9,051 3,167 23,266 1,431 2,564 49,069
65 and over 6,300 6,558 1,742 17,629 974 2,823 36,026
TOTAL 122,426 73,356 13,661 130,243 16,691 17,083 373,460

Table 6

  • There are significant differences in the age profiles of worldwide members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies. ACCA and the ICAI have the youngest population of members, with 70% and 68% respectively of their membership younger than 45 years.
  • In contrast 63% of CIPFA's membership is over 45 years old.
  • The most marked change in age profile between 2002 and 2007 relates to CIPFA where the percentage of members aged below 45 years in 2002 was 44% compared to 37% in 2007.

Chart 3: Comparison of Age Profiles of Members of Accountancy Bodies 2007 The chart illustrates the age distribution (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over) as a percentage of total membership for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in

  1. ACCA and ICAI show a higher proportion of younger members (Under 25 to 44), while CIPFA has a larger percentage of older members (45 and over).

Age of members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2002 – 2007

The following charts compare the age distribution of members of the bodies for 2002 and 2007.

Chart 4: Age of ACCA Members 2002 and 2007

This chart compares the age distribution of ACCA members in 2002 and 2007 across various age bands (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over). The percentage of members in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups is notably higher in 2007 compared to 2002, indicating a shift towards a younger or maturing membership base.

Chart 5: Age of CIMA Members 2002 and 2007

The chart compares the age distribution of CIMA members in 2002 and 2007 across age bands (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over). Similar to ACCA, CIMA shows an increase in the proportion of members in the 35-44 age group in 2007 compared to 2002, while the 25-34 age group shows a slight decrease.

Chart 6: Age of CIPFA Members 2002 and 2007

This chart compares the age distribution of CIPFA members in 2002 and 2007 across age bands. CIPFA shows a noticeable decrease in the percentage of members in the younger age groups (e.g., 25-34) and an increase in the older age groups (e.g., 55-64 and 65 and over) in 2007 compared to 2002, indicating an aging membership profile.

Chart 7: Age of ICAEW Members 2002 and 2007 The chart compares the age distribution of ICAEW members in 2002 and

  1. ICAEW shows a relatively stable age profile, with a slight increase in the 35-44 and 55-64 age groups in 2007.

Chart 8: Age of ICAI Members 2002 and 2007 This chart compares the age distribution of ICAI members in 2002 and

  1. ICAI shows a significant shift towards younger age groups, with the 25-34 age band having a higher percentage in 2007 than in 2002, and the 35-44 age band also increasing.

Chart 9: Age of ICAS Members 2002 and 2007 The chart compares the age distribution of ICAS members in 2002 and

  1. ICAS shows a relatively stable age distribution, with slight increases in the 25-34 and 65 and over age groups in 2007.

Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs)

There are five bodies in the UK recognised to register and supervise audit firms in line with the requirements of Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006 – Recognised Supervisory Bodies.5 The requirements as outlined in Schedule 10 of the Act mean that RSBs must have procedures in place to register and deregister statutory auditors and supervise work undertaken by these individuals and firms. The RSBs fulfil 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 statutory auditor continue to maintain an appropriate level of competence.

Table 7 below details the number of registered audit firms for the five recognised supervisory bodies as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

Number of Principals in Firm ACCA AAPA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
1 1,894 78 2,265 654 109 5,000
2 - 6 770 1 1,986 329 132 3,218
7 - 10 25 0 156 13 17 211
11 - 50 8 0 106 9 7 130
50+ 0 0 13 1 1 15
Total as at 31.12.07 2,697 79 4,526 1,006 266 8,574
Total as at 31.12.06 2,741 Not Available 4,859 1,028 300 8,928
Total as at 31.12.05 2,968 Not Available 5,193 1,044 343 9,548
Total as at 31.12.04 3,053 107 5,475 1,048 374 10,057
Total as at 31.12.03 3,083 118 6,336 1,046 423 11,006
Total as at 31.12.02 3,112 124 6,478 1,044 453 11,211

Table 7

  • The number of firms registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK has been gradually declining. Whilst the number of registered audit firms (excluding those registered with the AAPA) fell by over 23% between 2002 and 2007, the number of registered audit firms (excluding those registered with the AAPA) only fell by 4.8% between 2006 and 2007.
  • The overall decrease between 2002 and 2007 can be explained by the increase in the audit threshold and the corresponding decrease in the number of entities requiring an audit and therefore of firms requiring audit registration and an increase in the number of audit firms merging.
  • Even though the number of companies requiring an audit has dropped sharply during the period there are still, 5,000 sole practitioners registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK. The Statutory Audit Directive (effective April 2008 in the UK) introduced a requirement that the Recognised Supervisory Bodies should monitor the activities undertaken by audit firms at least once every six years. This replaced a more general requirement that RSBs had procedures in place to monitor their registrants that left the frequency of these visits for the body to decide. Table 8 below provides details of the number of monitoring visits conducted by the RSBs during the year ended 31 December
  1. Whilst the Directive was not in force during 2007, a number of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies increased the number of firms they monitored to bring practice into line with the Directive at an early stage.
ACCA AAPA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
Number of registered audit firms monitored during the year ended 31 December 2007 285 4 975 43 41 1,348

Table 8

SECTION THREE STUDENTS OF ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Students registered worldwide 2002 – 2007

Table 9 shows the number of students of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies registered worldwide as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

ACCA6 CIMA6 CIPFA6 ICAEW7,8 ICAI6 ICAS6 TOTAL
2002 174,158 77,923 2,412 9,648 3,392 2,327 269,860
2003 186,902 81,590 2,707 8,694 3,000 2,431 285,324
2004 203,602 84,868 2,954 8,910 3,167 2,497 305,998
2005 222,644 86,565 3,194 10,406 3,880 2,636 329,325
2006 252,767 88,256 3,071 13,551 4,525 3,154 365,324
2007 276,057 89,272 2,993 15,422 6,653 3,460 393,857
% growth (02-07)9 58.5 14.6 24.1 - 96.1 48.7 45.9
% compound annual growth (02-07)9 9.7 2.8 4.4 - 14.4 8.3 7.9

Table 9 Considerable care is needed in comparing the figures for the different bodies in Table

  1. Some of the bodies have included individuals who are exam qualified but have not been admitted as yet to membership.

Footnotes:

THREE – STUDENTS OF ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Students registered worldwide 2002 – 2007

Table 9 shows the number of students of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies registered worldwide as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2007.

ACCA6 CIMA6 CIPFA6 ICAEW7,8 ICAI6 ICAS6 TOTAL
2002 174,158 77,923 2,412 9,648 3,392 2,327 269,860
2003 186,902 81,590 2,707 8,694 3,000 2,431 285,324
2004 203,602 84,868 2,954 8,910 3,167 2,497 305,998
2005 222,644 86,565 3,194 10,406 3,880 2,636 329,325
2006 252,767 88,256 3,071 13,551 4,525 3,154 365,324
2007 276,057 89,272 2,993 15,422 6,653 3,460 393,857
% growth (02-07)9 58.5 14.6 24.1 - 96.1 48.7 45.9
% compound annual growth (02-07)9 9.7 2.8 4.4 - 14.4 8.3 7.9

Table 9 Considerable care is needed in comparing the figures for the different bodies in Table

  1. Some of the bodies have included individuals who are exam qualified but have not been admitted as yet to membership.

Student numbers compared

Table 10 provides a summary of the figures for all bodies on a comparable basis, excluding individuals who have passed their final admittance examination and completed their training contracts but have not yet applied for membership. As these figures are not available pre 2006, we shall publish both tables in future editions of Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession until sufficient years are available to analyse the data on a consistent basis.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2006 234,528 80,521 2,996 11,680 4,525 2,707 336,957
2007 256,693 81,569 2,928 13,299 5,559 2,776 362,824

Table 10

  • There continues to be wide differences in the numbers and rates of growth in the student membership worldwide of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies.
  • Overall student numbers continue to grow (excluding the ICAEW figures) (7.9% compound growth to 2007) compared with (6.5% to 2006), reflecting the health of the profession and the continued attraction for students.
  • The ICAI shows the highest growth rate and compound growth rate during the period 2002 to 2007.

Location of Students 2007

Table 11 shows the location (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland 84,340 56,854 2,940 14,193 6,643 3,455 168,425
Rest of the World 191,717 32,418 53 1,229 10 5 225,432
TOTAL 276,057 89,272 2,993 15,422 6,653 3,460 393,857

Table 11

  • Student numbers in the UK and Republic of Ireland have grown since last year for ACCA (6.4%), ICAEW (11.7%), ICAI (47%) and ICAS (9.6%).
  • The ACCA and CIMA have a significantly higher proportion of students outside the UK and Republic of Ireland (69.4% and 36.3% respectively) compared to the other Chartered Accountancy Bodies.

Note: The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the Chartered Accountancy Bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence.

Life of Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide 2007

Table 12 sets out on a worldwide basis the length of time that individuals have been registered as students with the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies.

ACCA CIMA10 CIPFA11 ICAEW12 ICAI13 ICAS
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 1 year 73,292 19,261 641 4,942 1,790 1,081
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 2 years but > 1 year 56,636 14,139 434 4,243 1,456 1,128
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 3 years but > 2 years 38,558 10,843 523 3,379 1,212 809
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 4 years but > 3 years 26,571 9,231 401 2,177 982 344
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 5 years but > 4 years 20,589 6,744 295 287 364 58
Number of students who have been a student for over 5 years 60,411 29,054 699 394 0 40

Table 12

  • Whilst the table above provides interesting indicators about the length of time between registering as a student and achieving the requirements for membership, it is difficult to make comparisons between the bodies as they do not keep information on the same basis.
  • It is important to note that some students do not undertake full time study and typically take longer to complete the requirements for membership.

Age of Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide 2007

Chart 10 compares the age distribution for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2007.

Comparison of Age Profile of Students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2007

Chart 10: Comparison of Age Profile of Students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2007

A bar chart showing the age distribution of students for each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies. Each bar is stacked to show the percentage of students in different age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

The X-axis lists the bodies: ACCA14, CIMA, CIPFA15, ICAEW14,15, ICAI, ICAS15. The Y-axis ranges from 0% to 100%.

Visually, CIPFA has the largest '45 and over' segment.

  • CIPFA has the oldest student age profile with 45% of students aged 35 and older.
  • Charts 11 to 22 show that most of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies have an ageing population of students. The exception to this is CIMA which has seen a small increase in the number of students under the age of 25.

Age comparison of Students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2002 – 2007

The following charts compare the age distribution of students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2002 and 2007.

Change in age profile for ACCA students 2002 and 2007

Chart 11 and Chart 12: Change in age profile for ACCA students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of ACCA students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

ACCA 2002 Pie Chart: * 46% 35-44 * 29% 25-34 * 9% 45 and over * 2% Under 25 * (implied: 14% remaining, possibly 25-34 based on visual)

ACCA 2007 Pie Chart: * 51% 25-34 * 27% 35-44 * 17% Under 25 * 5% 45 and over

Change in age profile for CIMA students 2002 and 2007

Chart 13 and Chart 14: Change in age profile for CIMA students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of CIMA students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

CIMA 2002 Pie Chart: * 59% 25-34 * 18% 35-44 * 17% Under 25 * 6% 45 and over

CIMA 2007 Pie Chart: * 51% 25-34 * 21% 35-44 * 20% Under 25 * 8% 45 and over

Change in age profile for CIPFA students 2002 and 2007

Chart 15 and Chart 16: Change in age profile for CIPFA students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of CIPFA students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

CIPFA 2002 Pie Chart: * 44% 35-44 * 29% 25-34 * 16% 45 and over * 11% Under 25

CIPFA 2007 Pie Chart: * 44% 35-44 * 29% 25-34 * 16% 45 and over * 11% Under 25

Change in age profile for ICAEW students 2002 and 2007

Chart 17 and Chart 18: Change in age profile for ICAEW students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of ICAEW students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

ICAEW 2002 Pie Chart: * 70% 25-34 * 29% 35-44 * 1% Under 25 * (0% 45 and over)

ICAEW 2007 Pie Chart: * 56% 25-34 * 42% 35-44 * 2% Under 25 * (0% 45 and over)

Change in age profile for ICAI students 2002 and 2007

Chart 19 and Chart 20: Change in age profile for ICAI students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of ICAI students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

ICAI 2002 Pie Chart: * 67% 25-34 * 32% 35-44 * 1% Under 25 * (0% 45 and over)

ICAI 2007 Pie Chart: * 50% 25-34 * 47% 35-44 * 3% Under 25 * (0% 45 and over)

Change in age profile for ICAS students 2002 and 2007

Chart 21 and Chart 22: Change in age profile for ICAS students 2002 and 2007

Two pie charts comparing the age profile of ICAS students in 2002 and 2007. The legend indicates age categories: * Under 25 * 25-34 * 35-44 * 45 and over

ICAS 2002 Pie Chart: * 71% 25-34 * 25% 35-44 * 3% Under 25 * 1% 45 and over

ICAS 2007 Pie Chart: * 62% 25-34 * 37% 35-44 * 1% Under 25 * 0% 45 and over

Sectoral employment of students worldwide 2007

Table 13 shows the sectoral employment of worldwide students of each of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS16 TOTAL
Public Practice 70,008 0 0 11,895 6,309 3,358 91,570
Industry & Commerce 130,768 70,382 82 115 164 102 201,613
Public Sector 35,120 14,782 2,909 202 28 0 53,041
Other17 40,161 4,108 2 3,210 152 0 47,633
TOTAL 276,057 89,272 2,993 15,422 6,653 3,460 393,857

Table 13

  • Over 75% of ICAEW, ICAI and ICAS students are employed in public practice. In contrast only 25% of ACCA's students are employed in public practice.
  • 97% of CIPFA's students are employed in the public sector.
  • Whilst a large number of ACCA's students are employed in industry and commerce (47%), their students are most widely dispersed across the employment sectors of the profession.

Gender of students worldwide 2007

Table 14 shows the percentage of female students of each of the accountancy bodies worldwide as at 31 December 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI18 ICAS18 TOTAL
2002 51 43 50 45 54 46 48
2003 51 43 49 45 53 43 48
2004 50 43 50 44 55 44 48
2005 50 44 49 41 52 44 48
2006 50 44 50 41 54 46 48
2007 50 45 49 40 52 46 48

Table 14

  • The total proportion of female students worldwide has remained constant between 2002 and 2007.
  • The biggest change is for the ICAEW, where the percentage of female students fell between 2002 and 2007.
  • The percentage of female students remains higher than the percentage of female members (see Table 5)

Graduate entrants to training with the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies

Chart 23 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each body who, at the time of registration as students, were (i) graduates of any discipline and (ii) graduates who 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 employers rather than the result of strategic decisions of the bodies.

Percentage of students who hold a degree and the percentage of those students who hold a relevant degree.

Chart 23: Percentage of students who hold a degree and the percentage of those students who hold a relevant degree.

A bar chart showing the percentage of students from each accountancy body who hold a degree and the percentage of those students who hold a relevant degree. The X-axis lists the bodies: ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI19, ICAS. The Y-axis ranges from 0 to 100%.

For each body, two bars are shown: * Holding a Degree (light blue bar) * Holding a Relevant Degree (darker red bar)

Visually, ICAI and ICAS show the highest percentages for both categories.

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

Note: 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 and Accounting & Finance
  • ICAI Accountancy, Business & Commerce, Finance
  • ICAS Accountancy

Pass rates 2007

Table 15 shows:

  • The percentage of overall passes at the final examination stage for the year 2007;
  • The percentage of those overall passes at the final examination stage which are first time passes; and
  • Of those first time passes the number of students who have been awarded at least one exemption at any stage of the process.
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS
Percentage of overall passes at the final examination 47 54 71 79 83 74
Percentage of those overall passes that were first time passes 52 60 Not Available 61 74 Not Available
Percentage of students with first time passes who took advantage of one or more exemption 78 Not Available Not Available 44 Not Available Not Available

Table 15

  • The percentage of overall passes has gone up for all of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies compared to the prior year (ACCA = 45% CIMA = 46% ICAEW =78% ICAI = 83% ICAS = 60%20 (note that this information was not provided by CIPFA last year)).
  • For all bodies, where information is available, more than 50% of the overall passes were first time passes.
  • Of those with first time passes at ACCA a significant majority of students had at least one exemption.

Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

There are six bodies21 in the UK recognised to offer the audit qualification in line with the requirements of Schedule 11 of 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 16 below shows the number of students registered with each RQB as at 31 December 2007, and the number of students following the audit route and as a result eligible for the recognised professional qualification, if successful.

ACCA AIA22 CIPFA22 ICAEW ICAI ICAS
Number of students in the UK and ROI23 84,340 286 2,940 14,193 6,643 3,455
Number of students following the audit route or eligible for the recognised professional qualification23 N/A 0 0 11,129 4,022 N/A
Number of students who became members during 2007 8,856 2 293 2,459 971 657
The number of members who were awarded the recognised professional qualification 161 0 0 225 196 41
Total number of approved training offices in the UK and ROI 5,336 125 0 2,635 722 17425
Total number of training offices in the UK and ROI approved for training audit students 4,226 0 0 2,11824 500 N/A

Table 16

The table shows that, whilst all bodies have a large number of students, very few are awarded the audit qualification. In most cases this is because 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.

SECTION FOUR OTHER INFORMATION ON THE SIX CHARTERED ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2002 – 2007

Table 17 and Chart 24 shows the income of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in £m over the period 2002 – 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI26 ICAS TOTAL
2002 46.0 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
2006 79.1 36.5 38.5 63.6 17.1 13.7 248.5
2007 87.7 40.4 39.3 69.0 21.5 15.0 272.9

Table 17

Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies between 2002 and 2007

Chart 24: Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies between 2002 and 2007

A line chart showing the income in £m for six Chartered Accountancy Bodies from 2002 to 2007. The Y-axis represents income in £m, ranging from 0.0 to 100.0. The X-axis represents the years from 2002 to 2007. Each body is represented by a different colored line: * ACCA * CIMA * CIPFA * ICAEW * ICAI26 * ICAS

The chart shows a general upward trend in income for most bodies over the period. ICAI shows a particularly steep increase towards 2007.

  • Chart 24 and Table 17 show the most significant increase in income is for ICAI whose income has risen at a compound annual rate of 15%. Whilst this can be explained in part by changes in exchange rates it may also reflect the growth in the number of both members and students 5.1% and 14.4% respectively (see Tables 2 and 9)

Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2007

Chart 25: Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2007

A bar chart comparing the income and costs for each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2007. The Y-axis represents monetary value in £m, ranging from 0.0 to 90.0. The X-axis lists the bodies: ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS.

For each body, two bars are shown: * Income 2007 (darker bar) * Costs 2007 (lighter bar)

Visually, ACCA has the highest income and costs, followed by ICAEW and CIMA. For most bodies, income appears slightly higher than costs.

Chart 25: Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2007 A bar chart showing income and costs in £m for various accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS) for the year

  1. ACCA has the highest income and costs (around £90m), followed by ICAEW (around £70m). ICAI and ICAS have the lowest income and costs (around £20m and £15m respectively). For most bodies, income and costs are closely matched.

Staffing of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2002 – 2007

Table 18 shows the number of staff (full time equivalent) employed by the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies over the period 2002 to 2007.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW27 ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2002 487 235 302 425 95 137
2003 571 239 335 428 104 135
2004 640 238 321 491 104 137
2005 694 246 313 538 104 135
2006 727 250 319 541 114 137
2007 763 36528 314 579 129 143

Table 18

  • The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI has increased by 30.4% since 2002. Most of that increase is accounted for by ACCA with an increase of 57%.

Chart 26: Comparison of staff levels from 2002 and 2007 A bar chart comparing staff levels for 2002 and 2007 across six accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS). The Y-axis represents staff count, ranging from 0 to

  1. ACCA shows the most significant increase in staff, from over 400 in 2002 to over 700 in 2007. ICAEW also shows an increase, while other bodies show more moderate changes.

5. Audit Firms

Introductory Note: Major Audit Firms

Tables 19 to 21 show fee income for audit and non-audit services for many of the larger registered audit firms for the years 2005-7. Most of these have clients who are defined as UK public interest entities. 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.

The audit scandals in the US in late 2001 and mid 2002 resulted in debate in the UK on the provision of non audit services to audit clients. This led to the Auditing Practicing Board's ethical standard 5 on non-audit services and to new guidance for listed companies in the Combined Code on the purchase of non audit services from a company's auditors. As a result we have seen a reduction in total fee income from the provision of non audit services to audit clients. (Charts 27 and 28)

In 2005, there was an increase in the audit threshold resulting in fewer companies requiring an audit. Audit fee income has fallen slightly in the past 6 years; however, this is not as dramatic as one may have expected and can be partially explained by fee income from the introduction and implementation of IFRS. (Charts 27 and 28) It is not possible to make detailed comparisons between firms using the information in Tables 19 to

  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 have classified their audit and non-audit income in slightly different ways.

Key Points: Major Audit Firms

  • Chart 27 shows the split of fee income for the Big Four firms for the five years to 2007 based on the detailed information in the fee income tables (Tables 19-21) and similar tables in both the 5th and 4th editions of Key Facts and Trends. Chart 27 shows that the percentage of fee income derived from non audit clients has been rising over the past five years. This has been mirrored by a decline in the percentage of fee income from non audit work to audit clients. This trend is as a result of the new guidance and requirements introduced within the ethical standards in 2005. In addition, the Combined Code and Smith Guidance include points relating to the independence of the external auditor and the provision of non audit services.
  • Chart 28 shows the change in the split of fee income for many of the larger firms outside the Big Four (as included within Tables 19-21). The trend in fee income over the past three years is consistent with that of the Big Four over the past five years (Chart 27). Fee income from non audit work to audit clients has been declining over the period shown. This fall may have arisen as a result of the introduction of the guidance and requirements stated within the APB's ethical standards and the Combined Code and Smith Guidance relating to the independence of the external auditor and the provision of non audit services.
  • Total fee income for many of the larger registered audit firms grew more strongly between 2005 and 2006 than between 2006 and 2007. This can be explained in part as a result of the one off advisory work in relation to the implementation of IFRS.
  • Whilst the percentage of total fee income from audit for the Big Four and many of the larger registered firms outside of the Big Four has remained relatively constant year on year (Charts 27 and 28), the total fee income from audit per Responsible Individual (RI) has risen.
  • The percentage of listed companies outside of the FTSE 350 audited by the Big Four has fallen over the past four years (Table 26).

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2007 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals29 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals30 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-07 822 264 360 2,107 595 431 1,081
KPMG31 LLP 30-Sep-07 559 249 317 1,607 423 264 920
Deloitte & Touche LLP 31-May-07 65132 202 209 1,802 33933 25533 120833
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-07 481 153 222 1,226 332 166 728
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-07 226 98 132 286 97 56 133
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-07 249 96 106 315 81 40 193
Baker Tilly Partnership 31-Mar-07 269 132 132 187 59 33 95
PKF (UK) LLP34 31-Mar-07 95 58 58 130 54 35 42
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-07 104 57 59 80 34 9 37
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-07 62 42 42 41 19 1035 1235

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2007 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals29 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals30 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)
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit36,37 Company 30-Apr-07 39 33 34 56 14 0 43
RSM Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-0738 68 30 34 64 13 10 42
Tenon Audit Limited Company 30-Jun-07 4 3 54 13 13 0 0
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-07 64 32 32 49 12 4 33
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-07 82 45 52 40 10 5 25
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-07 129 92 93 54 9 6 39
Kingston Smith LLP39 30-Apr-07 45 39 1 26 9 6 11
Macintyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-07 46 30 30 24 9 NA NA
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-0740 29 16 16 17 8 2 7

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2007 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals29 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals30 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)
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-07 3 3 58 8 8 0 0
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP 30-Jun-07 50 24 24 23 7 2 14
Hays Macintyre Partnership 31-Mar-07 24 18 22 14 7 3 4
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-07 53 30 30 32 6 4 21
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-07 41 22 22 30 5 11 15
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-07 21 8 10 14 5 3 7
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-07 21 11 11 13 5 2 6
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-07 40 17 21 18 4 NA NA
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-07 15 10 10 9 241 141 641
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-07 7 4 4 6 2 0 4
DTE Business Advisory Services Limited Company 30-Apr-07 11 5 11 6 2 1 3

Table 19

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2007 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals29 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals30 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-07 8 6 6 5 2 1 2
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-07 35 7 7 18 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar42 Partnership 31-Mar-07 5 4 4 2 1 NA 1

Table 19

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2006 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals43 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals44 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-06 793 268 355 1,980 551 449 980
KPMG45 LLP 30-Sep-06 556 249 318 1,454 398 280 776
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-06 447 146 205 1,130 323 147 660
Deloitte LLP 31-May-06 598 194 198 1,559 31046 29146 95846
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-06 216 99 130 260 81 72 107
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-06 236 98 107 276 71 36 169
Baker Tilly Partnership47 31-Mar-06 264 142 142 175 54 32 89
PKF (UK) LLP48 31-Mar-06 91 54 54 117 49 31 37
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-06 85 54 54 72 29 9 34
RSM Robson Rhodes LLP 30-Apr-06 84 36 42 85 22 11 52

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2006 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals43 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals44 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)
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-06 63 40 40 39 17 1149 1149
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit50 Company 30-Apr-06 40 33 34 56 12 0 44
Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-06 65 29 39 55 11 9 35
Tenon Audit Limited Company 30-Jun-06 4 3 46 11 11 051 051
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-06 64 33 33 41 11 5 25
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-06 76 51 53 36 9 4 23
Macintyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-06 42 29 29 23 9 NA52 NA52
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-0653 26 17 17 16 8 2 6
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-06 3 3 58 7 7 054 054

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2006 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals43 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals44 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)
Chantrey Vellacott LLP55 30-Jun-06 50 26 26 23 7 2 14
Kingston Smith LLP56 30-Apr-06 42 38 1 24 7 6 10
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-06 32 19 20 27 6 10 11
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-06 20 11 11 12 5 2 5
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-06 21 8 10 14 4 3 6
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-06 54 31 31 28 3 7 18
Wilkins Kennedy Partnership 30-Apr-06 33 23 23 15 2 3 10
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-06 7 4 4 6 2 0 4
DTE Business Advisory Services Limited Company 30-Apr-06 11 5 10 5 2 1 2
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-06 16 10 10 8 157 157 6
Jeffreys Henry LLP 30-Apr-06 8 6 6 5 1 1 3

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2006 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals43 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals44 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)
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-06 34 6 NA 16 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar58 Partnership 31-Mar-06 5 4 4 1 0 0 1
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-06 39 16 19 16 NA NA NA

Table 20

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2005 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals59 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals60 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 1,780 496 456 828
KPMG61 LLP 30-Sept-05 560 256 328 1,280 357 295 628
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-05 408 147 201 945 29962 154 492
Deloitte & Touche LLP 31-May-05 591 193 197 1,355 291 194 870
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-05 209 102 130 208 6463 6063 8463
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-05 240 99 106 256 56 36 164
PKF LLP64 31-Mar-05 98 NA65 52 114 48 31 35
Baker Tilly Partnership 31-Mar-05 258 155 155 165 46 36 83
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-05 80 54 54 65 27 10 28

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2005 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals59 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals60 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)
RSM Robson Rhodes LLP 30-Apr-05 85 36 39 86 19 11 55
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-05 60 41 41 35 13 14 9
Moore Stephens LLP66 30-Apr-05 59 26 26 37 11 3 22
Tenon Audit67 Ltd Company 30-Jun-05 4 3 57 11 11 068 068
Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-05 64 29 40 44 11 7 26
HLB Vantis Audit plc69 Plc 31-May-0570 11 8 25 9 9 068 068
Smith & Williamson71 Ltd Company 30-Apr-05 78 21 22 46 9 NA 37
Macintyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-05 41 30 NA 21 8 NA NA
Chantrey Vellacott Partnership 30-Jun-05 48 25 25 23 8 3 12
Kingston Smith72 Partnership 30-Apr-05 41 38 NA 23 7 6 10

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2005 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals59 No of Audit Principals No of responsible individuals60 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)
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-05 63 45 47 26 7 4 15
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 30-Mar-05 20 13 13 13 5 2 6
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-05 32 25 23 22 5 8 9
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-05 21 11 11 10 4 1 5
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-05 22 11 1373 12 4 3 5
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-05 53 32 32 25 3 7 15
Wilkins Kennedy Partnership 30-Apr-05 34 26 26 15 3 3 9
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sept-05 7 4 4 6 2 1 3
DTE Limited Company 30-Apr-05 11 5 9 4 1 1 2
Jeffreys Henry LLP74 30-Apr-05 8 5 5 4 1 1 2

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS YEAR ENDED 2005

(By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals 75 No of Audit Principals 76 No of responsible individuals 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)
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-05 63 45 47 26 7 4 15
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 30-Mar-05 20 13 13 13 5 2 6
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-05 32 25 23 22 5 8 9
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-05 21 11 11 10 4 1 5
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-05 22 11 1375 12 4 3 5
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-05 53 32 32 25 3 7 15
Wilkins Kennedy Partnership 30-Apr-05 34 26 26 15 3 3 9
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sept-05 7 4 4 6 2 1 3
DTE Limited Company 30-Apr-05 11 5 9 4 1 1 2
Jeffreys Henry LLP76 30-Apr-05 8 5 5 4 1 1 2
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-05 16 10 10 7 177 177 5
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-05 34 6 0 16 1 NA NA
Begbies Everett Chettle78 Partnership 31-Mar-05 5 3 3 1 0 NA 1
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-05 33 14 19 14 NA NA NA

Table 21

Chart 27: Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income (2002-2007)

A bar chart showing Audit Fee Income (£m), Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.

  • 2003: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 18%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 52%.
  • 2004: Audit Fee Income is around 25%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 20%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 55%.
  • 2005: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 23%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 49%.
  • 2006: Audit Fee Income is around 30%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 25%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 45%.
  • 2007: Audit Fee Income is around 25%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 47%.

Chart 28: Analysis of the Fee Income (2002-2007) of many of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four

A bar chart showing Audit Fee Income (£m), Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee income from Non-Audit work to Non-Audit Clients for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.

  • 2003: Audit Fee Income is around 32%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 18%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 50%.
  • 2004: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 22%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 50%.
  • 2005: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 22%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 50%.
  • 2006: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 22%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 50%.
  • 2007: Audit Fee Income is around 28%, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients around 22%, Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients around 50%.

Growth of Total Fee Income

Table 22 shows the growth rate of total fee income between 2003 and 2007 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 Four audit firms and the largest firms outside the Big Four.

To ensure consistency in the table below, we have only included the total fee income figures for those firms where data has been submitted for all five years.

2006-7 2005-6 2004-5 2003-4
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients 79 9.96 13.99 12.61 5.58
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the Big Four Firms 10.11 14.24 13.55 4.60
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the Non Big Four Firms 9.26 12.82 8.33 10.27

Table 22

  • The overall growth rate of total fee income was higher between 2005 and 2006 than between 2006 and 2007. This reflects the percentage growth of total fee income at both Big 4 firms and Non Big 4 firms.
  • This growth rate may be explained by additional fees gained during 2005 and 2006 in relation to one off advisory work in relation to the implementation of IFRS and additional audit fees in respect of this.

Audit Fee Income per Responsible Individual

Table 23 illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI) for 2003 to 2007 (inclusive). This information is split further between the Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.

2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients 1.01 0.96 0.89 0.88 0.93
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the Big Four Firms 1.52 1.47 1.35 1.13 1.07
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the Non Big Four Firms 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.38 0.44

Table 23

  • Audit fee income generated per Responsible Individual has grown between 2003 and 2007 for both Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.
  • The increase over the period illustrated above can be explained by a greater increase in audit fee income compared to the number of responsible individuals.

Responsible Individual Status

Table 24 shows the percentage of Responsible Individuals80 within the Big Four firms and the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four who are audit principals81 for 2003 to 2007 (inclusive). This information is obtained from the firms included both within Tables 19 to 21 and previous editions of Key Facts and Trends.

Big Four Many of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four
Audit Principals Employees
2003 80.45% 19.55%
2004 78.42% 21.58%
2005 80.50% 19.50%
2006 79.65% 20.35%
2007 78.34% 21.66%

Table 24

  • The split between audit principals and employees with Responsible Individual status has changed more dramatically outside of the Big Four.
  • The number of employee Responsible Individuals is greater at the Big Four firms than the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four Firms.

CONCENTRATION OF LISTED COMPANIES' AUDITS YEAR ENDED 2007

(By Number of Listed Clients – FTSE 100, FTSE 250, Other Main Market and AIM)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Audit Clients No of FTSE 100 Audit Clients No of FTSE 250 Audit Clients No of Other Main Market Audit Clients No of AIM Audit Clients
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-07 21000 39 75 82 141
Deloitte & Touche82 LLP 31-May-07 16843 22 70 206 86
KPMG83 LLP 30-Sep-07 17008 21 48 192 113
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-07 5350 19 36 368 21
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-07 7035 0 6 30 146
Grant Thornton84 LLP 30-Jun-07 9000 0 5 75 217
PKF (UK) 85 LLP 31-Mar-07 2875 0 0 28 53
Baker Tilly Partnership 31-Mar-07 6392 0 0 26 108
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-07 1590 0 0 5 20
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-07 473 0 0 5 3
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit86, 87 Company 30-Apr-07 1492 0 0 4 34
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-07 306 0 0 4 0
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-07 365 0 0 4 0
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-07 1700 0 0 3 14
Chantrey Vellacott LLP 30-Jun-07 689 0 0 3 12
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-07 960 0 0 3 8
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-07 2300 0 0 2 33
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-07 1995 0 0 2 26
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-07 1099 0 0 2 6
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-07 1158 0 0 1 21
Jeffreys Henry LLP 30-Apr-07 188 0 0 1 18
Tenon Audit Limited Company 30-Jun-07 1845 0 0 1 10
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-07 730 0 0 1 4
Begbies Chettle Agar88 Partnership 31-Mar-07 94 0 1 1 n/a
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-07 1283 0 0 0 21
RSM Bentley Jennison89 Partnership 31-Dec-07 1450 0 0 0 9
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-07 1601 0 0 0 8
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-07 1931 0 0 0 3
Macintyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-07 1099 0 0 0 2
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-07 253 0 0 0 1
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-07 553 0 0 0 0
DTE Business Advisory Service Limited Company 30-Apr-07 183 0 0 0 0
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-07 329 0 0 0 0

Table 25

Concentration of listed Companies' Audits

Table 26 illustrates the percentage of the number of audits undertaken by the Big 4 firms, the next five firms (based on number of listed audit clients) and other audit firms, with UK equity listed companies as audit clients.

For the purposes of Table 26 where a listed company is audited by a firm from the Crown Dependencies it has been given the same classification as its UK counterpart.

| | Big Four Firms (%) | Next Five Firms (%) | Other Firms (%) | |:---|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------|:-------| | | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07 | 31/03/06 | 31/03/05 | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07 | 31/03/06 | 31/03/05 | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07 | 31/03/06 | 31/03/05 | | FTSE 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | FTSE 250 | 96.0 | 96.8 | 96.4 | 96.8 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | | Other Main Market | 72.3 | 75.4 | 79.0 | 79.3 | 20.1 | 17.7 | 15.0 | 14.1 | 7.6 | 6.9 | 6.0 | 6.6 | | All Main Market | 79.9 | 82.3 | 84.0 | 83.6 | 14.8 | 12.9 | 11.6 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 4.4 | 5.3 |

Table 26

Source: Audit Inspection Unit

Note: Due to changes in market constituents and factors such as share suspensions the table above is not entirely comparable year on year but illustrates the underlying levels and trends of auditor concentration.

Audit Firms registered with ICAEW (December 2007)

Table 27 analyses fee income of audit firms registered with the ICAEW by size using information from their annual returns (Please note that in some cases this date is not consistent with the firm’s year end).

Note this information relates only to those firms registered with the ICAEW.

Firms ranked by size Average Total Fee Income (£'000) Fee Income per Partner (£'000)
1 to 4 1,491,472 2,285
5 to 9 188,335 1,168
10 to 30 22,415 614
31 to 100 7,165 497
101 to 500 2,280 371
501 to 1000 966 297
1001 to 2000 482 234
2001 to 3000 221 152
3001 to 4000 87 77
4001 to 4526 20 16

Table 27

Table 27, is consistent with the information included within Tables 19-21 illustrating that over 59% of the total fee income of firms registered with the ICAEW is attributable to the Big 4.

Financial Reporting Council

The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2008 ISBN: 978-1-84798-103-5 SAP code: UP/FRC-B18021 The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number

  1. Registered Office: 5th Floor, Aldwych House, 71-91 Aldwych, London WC2B 4HN.

© The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2008 ISBN: 978-1-84798-103-5 SAP code: UP/FRC-B18021 The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number

  1. Registered Office: 5th Floor, Aldwych House, 71-91 Aldwych, London WC2B 4HN.

FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL 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

  1. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) 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 in Ireland (ICAI) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) ↩

  2. The ICAI combine members working within the public sector with those working within industry & commerce. ↩

  3. ‘Other' includes those members who are unemployed, taking a career break, undertaking full time study, on maternity leave, and any members who are unclassified, for example, because they have not provided the information. ↩

  4. The age is not known for 28 CIPFA members. ↩

  5. Association of Authorised Public Accountants (AAPA) Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) ↩

  6. These figures include individuals who have passed their final examination and are entitled to membership but have not yet been admitted. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  7. The ICAEW figures for 2005, 2006 and 2007 comprise 596, 666 and 1,087 individuals respectively who are classed as independent students (i.e. do not have a training contract and therefore cannot sit a final case study examination). ↩↩

  8. The ICAEW figures for 2006 and 2007 comprise 1,871 and 2,123 individuals respectively who have passed their final case study examination and completed their training contracts. These individuals are entitled for membership but have not yet applied. ↩↩

  9. Percentage growth rates and percentage compound annual growth rates have not been calculated for the ICAEW as the figures in Table 9 are not comparable year on year, see footnote 3 above. ↩↩↩↩

  10. These figures include individuals who have passed their final examination and are entitled to membership but have not yet been admitted. ↩

  11. In 2002 CIPFA transferred onto a new business system and no longer has information on original registration dates for students who joined prior to this date. ↩

  12. Pre 2005 ICAEW retained information on all individuals who were entitled to membership but not yet been admitted. In 2005 ICAEW kept information on students up to 2 years post the completion of their training contract from 2006 this was reduced to 1 year post training contract completion. ↩

  13. The ICAI do not keep information on students who have completed their training contracts and have not applied for membership. ↩

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

  15. CIPFA, ICAEW and ICAS have 1.6%, 1.3% and 3.2% respectively of unknown student ages. ↩↩↩

  16. The ICAS figure for industry and commerce includes students working within the public sector. ↩

  17. ‘Other' includes students not in employment, employed in other sectors, those in full time education, independent students for whom no information on their employment is available and those individuals who have passed their final examination and are entitled to membership but have not yet been admitted. ↩

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

  19. 23% of the ICAI student intake in 2007 was post-graduate students. ↩

  20. Source: Key Facts and Trends 5th edition ↩

  21. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) Association of International Accountants (AIA) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) ↩

  22. Neither the AIA nor CIPFA, whilst being recognised qualifying bodies, and therefore being entitled to offer and award the recognised professional qualification, has any students currently following this route. ↩↩

  23. This includes individuals who have passed the final examination but have not yet been admitted to membership. ↩↩

  24. This figure represents the number of authorised training offices with adequate levels of audit experience for their students to be awarded the audit qualification on completion of training. ↩

  25. ICAS figure includes a number of group authorisations. ICAS treats group authorisations as one office. The 174 approved training offices noted above include 27 group authorisations covering 135 offices. ↩

  26. The ICAI income has been converted from Euros at the year end rate. ↩↩

  27. The 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. ↩

  28. CIMA's staff figure for 2007 has been included on a global basis in 2007. Prior to this the figures only included the UK and ROI. The 2007 figure includes 100 staff employed outside of the UK and ROI. ↩

  29. Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩↩↩↩

  30. Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are able to sign audit reports ↩↩↩↩

  31. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  32. This includes principles who retired from the firm at midnight on the final day of the financial year ↩

  33. These figures are best estimates for the split of the firm's total fee income ↩↩↩

  34. PKF became an LLP on 1st April 2005 (PKF (UK) LLP) ↩

  35. These figures are best estimates for the split of Fee income from Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients and to Non-Audit Clients ↩↩

  36. Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit merged with Soloman Hare on 31st May 2005. ↩

  37. Nexia Smith & Williamson changed their name with effect from 1st May 2006 ↩

  38. RSM Bentley Jennison's information is provided as at 31st May 2007 ↩

  39. LLP from 1 May 2006 ↩

  40. Change in year end therefore, 14 Month period. ↩

  41. These figures are best estimates for the split of the firm's total fee income ↩↩↩

  42. Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 1st April 2006 ↩

  43. Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩↩↩↩

  44. Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are authorised to sign audit reports ↩↩↩↩

  45. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  46. These figures are best estimates for the split of the firm's total fee income ↩↩↩

  47. Effective from 1st April 2007 Baker Tilly became an LLP ↩

  48. PKF became an LLP on 1st April 2005 (PKF (UK) LLP) ↩

  49. These figures are estimated. ↩↩

  50. Nexia Smith & Williamson changed their name with effect from 1st May 2006. Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit merged with Soloman Hare on 31st May 2005. ↩

  51. Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as these firms only provide audit work. ↩↩

  52. 'NA' means the information was 'Not Available' ↩↩

  53. Change in year end therefore, 14 Month period has been prorated to 12 months. ↩

  54. HLB Vantis Audit plc has zero income from non-audit work as the firm only provides audit services ↩↩

  55. Chantrey Vellacott changed from a Partnership to an LLP on 4 July 2005 ↩

  56. LLP from 1 May 2006 ↩

  57. Figures estimated ↩↩

  58. Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar from 1st April 2006 ↩

  59. Principals are partners or members of an LLP ↩↩↩

  60. Responsible Individuals are those individuals who are authorised to sign audit reports ↩↩↩

  61. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  62. Included US GAAP/GAAS opinion on dual registered clients and regulatory return work on financial services clients. ↩

  63. Re-statement of income analysis following a change in systems in 2006 providing more detailed information ↩↩↩

  64. At 31 March 2005 PKF were a partnership. Subsequent to this PKF became an LLP called PKF(UK)LLP ↩

  65. 'NA' means the information was 'Not Available' ↩

  66. All amounts relate to previous partnership (Changed 3 October 2005) ↩

  67. Name changed from Blueprint Audit Limited with effect from 28 February 2005 ↩

  68. Tenon Audit and HLB Vantis Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as these firms only provide audit work ↩↩↩↩

  69. Name changed from HLB AV Audit plc with effect from 31 May 2005 ↩

  70. 14 Month period ↩

  71. Name changed to Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Ltd with effect from 1 May 2006 ↩

  72. LLP from 1 May 2006 ↩

  73. Including audit principals ↩

  74. LLP From 1st May 2004 ↩

  75. Including audit principals ↩↩

  76. LLP From 1st May 2004 ↩↩

  77. Figure estimated ↩↩

  78. Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar from 01 April 2006 ↩

  79. This is based on the information provided to the Professional Oversight Board and which is shown in the detailed tables on fee income of major audit firms. ↩

  80. A Responsible Individual has been awarded the recognised professional qualification in audit and holds a practising certificate. A responsible Individual can sign an audit report on behalf of his/her firm. ↩

  81. An audit principal is an audit partner or both partners and members of an LLP. ↩

  82. Figures reported as best estimates as at 31 October 2007 ↩

  83. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  84. Figures reported as best estimates as at 30 June 2007 ↩

  85. PKF became PKF (UK) LLP on 1st April 2005 ↩

  86. Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit merged with Soloman Hare. ↩

  87. Name changed to Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit with effect 1st May 2006 ↩

  88. Name changed to Begbies Chettle Agar with effect from 1st April 2006 ↩

  89. RSM Bentley Jennison's information is provided as at 31st May 2007 ↩

File

Name Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession 2008
Publication date 27 September 2023
Type Report
Format PDF, 1.3 MB
Download original
Back to top