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 2010

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

Contents

Chair's Foreword

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

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the UK's independent regulator whose aim is promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. Its functions are exercised principally by its Operating Bodies including the Professional Oversight Board (POB). This Board has the following responsibilities:

  • it oversees the regulation of auditors by the accountancy bodies;
  • it monitors the quality of auditing of large companies;
  • it oversees the regulation of the accountancy and actuarial professions by their professional bodies. This document is produced to provide helpful data on the accountancy profession and in so doing provides context to the Oversight Board's work. It provides statistical information principally on the members, students, income, costs and staffing of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies1 as at 31 December

  1. It also includes more limited information on two other bodies, one of which offers the recognised professional qualification2 and the other which supervises the work of statutory auditors3. The information in Section Five relates to a number of the larger registered audit firms which are auditors of nearly all listed companies and of many other public interest entities. We have included details of firms' fee income and client base in respect of their financial years ended in

  2. This section also includes for the first time information about third country audit firms who have clients that are admitted to trading on a regulated market in the UK. Under the Statutory Audit Directive all these firms must now register with the POB for their audit to be valid for UK regulatory purposes. We have included a table showing by country the numbers of these firms registered with the POB as at 31 May 2010 together with the numbers of their relevant clients.

'Key Facts and Trends' provides information and, where appropriate, some clarification and comment on possible limitations of the data. It is difficult to make comparisons between the different accountancy bodies or between audit firms, as a result of a number of factors including differing entry requirements and different classifications of income. Accordingly the document should not be used to rank the firms or the accountancy bodies.

As anticipated in the previous edition of ‘Key Facts and Trends', the economic downturn has significantly reduced the rate of growth in fee income for the larger registered audit firms. The accountancy profession is not immune from the recession but, despite this, the profession remains attractive with the overall number of members and worldwide students continuing to increase.

The changes we have made to this edition reflect comments received on previous editions. We would welcome comments on what information you think may improve future editions. Your comments should be sent to Christina Trickett ([email protected]). Further information about the FRC and its Operating Bodies including the POB is available at www.frc.org.uk.

Handwritten signature of Barbara Nius

Dame Barbara Mills DBE QC Chair of the Professional Oversight Board June 2010

1. Main Highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2004 - 2009

  • The number of members of the accountancy bodies continues to grow in the UK although at a slightly slower rate than last year. There has also been a small decline in student numbers. The six Chartered Bodies have over 293,000 members and over 168,000 students in the UK and Republic of Ireland. In 2009 membership grew by 2.5% and student numbers fell by 0.5%. (Table 1, Chart 1 and Table 12)
  • The six Chartered Bodies have over 402,000 members and over 421,000 students worldwide. The compound annual growth rate of members between 2004 and 2009 was 3.4%. Worldwide membership grew by 3.4% in 2009. (Table 2, Chart 2 and Table 9)
  • Worldwide, student numbers have been growing more quickly than membership numbers, (compound annual growth in members was 2.3% (06-09) compared to 7.7% (06-09)4 for students). Worldwide student numbers grew by 6.5% in 2009. (Tables 2 and 9)
  • There are significant differences between the Bodies in terms of geographical distribution of membership and student populations and in size, growth rate and age profile.
  • The number of registered audit firms continues gradually to decline. The overall number of audit firms registered in 2009 (7,843) is 21.2% lower than the number in 2004 (9,950). However, the rate of decline continues to slow, and the number of registered audit firms fell by 3.2% in 2009 compared with 4.7% in 2008. (Table 7)
  • The proportion of members awarded the recognised professional qualification for audit is much smaller than the number of students who become members. (Table 18). 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.

The Audit Firms 2004 - 2009

  • Over the past six 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. (Chart 20)
  • Total fee income barely grew at all in 2008-9 and at much slower rate than before. (Table 24). The growth rate of the Big Four firms was slightly higher than that of the non Big Four where fee income actually decreased in some cases. This represents a change from the previous years when the growth rate of audit income of the Non Big Four firms was greater. (Table 24)
  • Audit fee income per Responsible Individual in the Big Four firms and the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four has grown in 2009 by 4.5% and 10.4% respectively. (Table 25)
  • Table 28 shows that there has been a further small increase in the proportion of listed companies audited by non Big Four firms.

2. Members of Accountancy Bodies

Members in the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2004 – 2009

Table 1 and Chart 1 show the number of members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in the UK and the Republic of Ireland as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2009.

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2004 56,837 51,386 13,266 110,776 12,757 13,811 258,833
2005 59,059 53,697 13,317 111,114 13,523 14,255 264,965
2006 61,386 55,580 13,381 110,894 14,329 14,535 270,105
2007 64,260 58,370 13,400 111,707 15,121 14,903 277,761
2008 67,593 60,870 13,374 112,738 16,237 15,322 286,134
2009 68,907 63,513 13,440 114,468 17,076 15,858 293,262
% growth (08-09) 1.9 4.3 0.5 1.5 5.2 3.5 2.5
% growth (04-09) 21.2 23.6 1.3 3.3 33.9 14.8 13.3
% compound annual growth (04-09) 3.9 4.3 0.3 0.7 6.0 2.8 2.5

Table 1

  • The total number of members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in the UK and Republic of Ireland has continued to grow steadily at a compound annual growth rate of 2.5% for the period 2004 to 2009. Total membership has grown by 2.5% from 2008 to 2009 which is slightly lower than the 3% growth achieved from 2007 to 2008.
  • There are significant differences in growth rates of the individual Bodies. Chartered Accountants Ireland's membership in the UK and the ROI has shown the strongest growth with an average of 6% per year between 2004 and 2009. The memberships of ACCA and CIMA have also grown strongly over the same period at 3.9% and 4.3% respectively.
  • The ICAEW continues to be 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 2004 - 2009 This bar chart illustrates the number of members for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS bodies in the UK and Republic of Ireland from 2004 to

  1. The Y-axis represents the Number of Members, ranging from 0 to 120,000, and the X-axis lists the accountancy bodies. Each body shows bars for years 2004 through 2009. ICAEW consistently has the highest number of members, followed by ACCA and CIMA.

Members Worldwide 2004-2009

Table 2 and Chart 2 show the number of members of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2009.

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 131,398 76,368 13,697 132,411 17,843 17,671 389,388
2009 137,233 79,757 13,790 134,698 18,802 18,278 402,558
% growth (08-09) 4.4 4.4 0.7 1.7 5.4 3.4 3.4
% growth (04-09) 31.2 22.6 2.2 6.4 32.5 14.7 18.4
% compound annual growth (04-09) 5.6 4.2 0.4 1.2 5.8 2.8 3.4

Table 2

  • The total worldwide membership of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies has grown at a faster rate than the UK and ROI membership alone. (3.4% compared with 2.5% compound annual growth for the period 2004 to 2009).
  • The worldwide growth rate is mainly driven by the strong growth of ACCA which has 49.8% of its members outside the UK and ROI compared with 45.7% in 2004 (Table 3).
  • Chartered Accountants Ireland continues to experience a strong growth rate in total members due to its strong growth in members in the UK & ROI (Table 1). Chartered Accountants Ireland has only 9.2% of its members outside the UK and ROI (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. Note: Compound Annual Growth 06-09 is 2.3%

Chart 2: Confidence in actuaries and actuarial information This bar chart illustrates confidence levels (Y-axis: "Percentage confident or very confident") in actuaries and actuarial information across various accountancy bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS) from 2004 to

  1. Each body shows a series of bars representing the percentage of confidence for each year.

Footnotes

Chart 2: Confidence in actuaries and actuarial information

Bar chart showing the "Percentage confident or very confident" in actuaries and actuarial information across various professional bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS) for the years 2004 to 2009.

  • Y-axis: Percentage confident or very confident (0 to 140,000, though values are percentages, the axis seems to indicate member numbers or similar scale which is inconsistent with "Percentage confident or very confident" label but consistent with the visual height, implying large numbers in the range of 100,000+). Correction: The Y-axis is clearly labeled "Percentage confident or very confident" with numerical labels 0, 20,000, 40,000... up to 140,000. This is an unusual labeling for a percentage. Assuming it represents a count where the percentage is derived from. However, the title above the chart is "Confidence in actuaries and actuarial information" and the y-axis is "Percentage confident or very confident", so the numbers (20k-140k) are most likely counts of members who are confident, not percentages.

  • X-axis: Professional Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS)

  • Legend: 2004 (dark blue), 2005 (light blue), 2006 (lightest blue/cream), 2007 (light purple), 2008 (maroon), 2009 (darkest purple).
  • Observations:
    • ACCA and ICAEW consistently have the highest numbers across all years.
    • CIMA also shows significant numbers.
    • CIPFA, CAI, and ICAS have comparatively lower numbers.
    • Most bodies show a general upward trend in the numbers of confident members from 2004 to 2009.

(Source: Professional Oversight Board 11)

Members outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2004 – 2009

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 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 63,805 15,498 323 19,673 1,606 2,349 103,254
2009 68,326 16,244 350 20,230 1,726 2,420 109,296
% growth (08-09) 7.1 4.8 8.4 2.8 7.5 3.0 5.9
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2004 45.7 21.0 1.7 12.5 10.1 13.3 23.8
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2009 49.8 20.4 2.5 15.0 9.2 13.2 27.2

Table 3

  • For all the Chartered Accountancy Bodies in 2009, except for ICAS, the growth rate of the number of members outside the UK and ROI exceeded the growth rate of members inside the UK and ROI.
  • ACCA continues to have the largest percentage of members outside the UK and Republic of Ireland with the number of such members increasing by 43% from 2004 to 2009.

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 2009

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 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW 1 CAI ICAS TOTAL
Public Practice 27 2 2 32 32 29 23
Industry & Commerce 56 70 8 43 58 42 52
Public Sector 10 18 65 3 6 3 11
Retired 4 10 23 14 4 18 10
Other 2 3 0 2 8 0 8 4
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4

  • There continue to be very few CIPFA members and CIMA members employed in public practice.
  • CIPFA is the only body with a sizeable proportion of members employed in the public sector. The majority of members in the other bodies are employed in industry and commerce or public practice.
  • There has been very little change for any of the bodies in 2009 with regard to sectoral employment compared with 2008.

Gender of members worldwide 2004 – 2009 3

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 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI 3 ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 42 30 29 24 33 28 32
2009 43 30 30 24 35 29 33

Table 5

  • Overall the percentage of female members of all six Chartered Accountancy Bodies has risen from 28% in 2004 to 33% in 2009.
  • The ACCA continues to have the largest percentage of female members.

Age of members worldwide 2009

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 2004 compared to the age distribution as at 31 December 2009.
ACCA CIMA CIPFA 4 ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
Under 25 356 59 1 199 17 98 730
25 - 34 37,327 15,472 1,087 24,205 6,886 4,995 89,972
35 - 44 53,432 28,698 3,122 34,668 5,771 3,940 129,631
45 - 54 27,285 18,310 3,907 31,651 3,328 3,513 87,994
55 - 64 12,273 9,879 3,398 24,386 1,722 2,686 54,344
65 and over 6,560 7,339 2,204 19,589 1,078 3,046 39,816
TOTAL 137,233 79,757 13,719 134,698 18,802 18,278 402,487

Table 6

  • There are significant differences in the age profiles of worldwide members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies. ACCA and Chartered Accountants Ireland have the youngest population of members, with 66% and 67% respectively of their membership younger than 45 years.
  • ICAEW, CIPFA and ICAS all have over 50% of their members aged 45 or over. (Chart 3). CIPFA has the oldest population of members with 69% aged 45 or over.
  • The most marked change in age profile between 2004 and 2009 relates to CIPFA (Chart 6) where the percentage of members aged below 45 years in 2004 was 47% compared to 31% in 2009.

Chart 3: Comparison of Age Profile of Members of Accountancy Bodies 2009

Stacked bar chart showing the percentage age distribution of members for each of the six Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS) in 2009.

  • Y-axis: Percentage (0% to 100%)
  • X-axis: Accountancy Bodies (ACCA 2009, CIMA 2009, CIPFA 2009, ICAEW 2009, CAI 2009, ICAS 2009)
  • Legend (Age Ranges): Under 25 (light red), 25-34 (dark purple), 35-44 (light blue), 45-54 (light yellow), 55-64 (dark red), 65 and over (dark purple/brown), Unknown (dark blue, very small sliver in CIPFA).
  • Observations: Visually represents the age distribution data from Table 6, highlighting the varying proportions of different age groups across the bodies, with ACCA and CAI appearing to have larger younger populations and CIPFA, ICAEW, and ICAS having older populations.

Age of members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2004 and 2009

The following charts compare the percentage age distribution of members of the Bodies for 2004 and 2009.

Chart 4: Age of ACCA Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of ACCA members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: ACCA 2004 (light blue), ACCA 2009 (maroon)

Chart 5: Age of CIMA Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of CIMA members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: CIMA 2004 (light blue), CIMA 2009 (maroon)

Chart 6: Age of CIPFA Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of CIPFA members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: CIPFA 2004 (light blue), CIPFA 2009 (maroon)

Chart 7: Age of ICAEW Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of ICAEW members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: ICAEW 2004 (light blue), ICAEW 2009 (maroon)

Chart 8: Age of Chartered Accountants Ireland Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: CAI 2004 (light blue), CAI 2009 (maroon)

Chart 9: Age of ICAS Members 2004 and 2009

Bar chart comparing the percentage age distribution of ICAS members in 2004 and 2009 across different age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over).

  • Y-axis: Percentage (%)
  • X-axis: Age Categories
  • Legend: ICAS 2004 (light blue), ICAS 2009 (maroon)

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 to the Companies Act 2006 – Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs) 5. The requirements as outlined in Schedule 10 to the Act mean that RSBs must have procedures in place to register and de-register 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 RSBs as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2009.

Number of firms registered with the Recognised Supervisory Bodies

Number of Principals in Firm ACCA AAPA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
1 1,565 66 1,945 621 88 4,285
2 - 6 838 1 1,897 343 132 3,211
7 - 10 26 0 154 12 15 207
11 -50 7 0 99 7 6 119
50+ 0 0 18 2 1 21
Total as at 31.12.09 2,436 67 4,113 985 242 7,843
Total as at 31.12.08 2,489 80 4,279 991 260 8,099
Total as at 31.12.07 2,618 79 4,526 1,006 266 8,495
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 2,946 107 5,475 1,048 374 9,950

Table 7

  • The number of firms registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK continues to gradually decline year on year. The number of registered audit firms fell by over 21.2% between 2004 and 2009 and by 3.2% between 2008 and 2009.
  • There was an 8% decrease in the number of sole practitioners between 2008 and 2009. The number of sole practitioners has declined each year since 2003 although the rate of decline has reduced. Between 2003 6 to 2008 the number of sole practitioners decreased by 30% compared to a 28% drop between 2004 and 2009.
  • The overall decrease in the number of registered audit firms between 2004 and 2009 can largely be explained by the increase in the audit threshold from 2004 which has resulted in a lower number of entities requiring an audit. The proportion of annual accounts filed at Companies House that are audit exempt has increased from 61.9% in 2004/05 to 69.5% in 2008/09 7. It should also be noted that the number of annual accounts subject to audit and filed at Companies House between 2004/05 and 2008/09 has fallen by 15% 7.
  • The reduction in the number of entities having an audit has meant that some firms have found that there is no longer a good business case for retaining their audit registration, merged with other firms or passed on this work to larger firms where there are greater economies of scale in relation to matters such as quality assurance and Continuing Professional Development.

Statutory Audit Directive

The Statutory Audit Directive (effective April 2008 in the UK) introduced a requirement that the RSBs should monitor the activities undertaken by audit firms at least once every six years. This replaced the less prescriptive requirement in the 1989 Companies Act that RSBs had procedures in place to monitor their registrants; the frequency of these visits was left to the individual RSB to decide. Table 8 below provides details of the number of monitoring visits conducted by the RSBs during the years ended 31 December 2008 and 2009 and the proportion of registered audit firms that were visited during these years.

ACCA AAPA ICAEW CAI 8 ICAS TOTAL
Number of registered audit firms monitored during the year ended 31 December 2008 395 11 988 95 54 1,543
% of Registered Audit Firms monitored 15.9 13.8 23.1 9.6 20.8 19.1
Number of registered audit firms monitored during the year ended 31 December 2009 416 9 757 102 51 1,335
% of Registered Audit Firms monitored 17.1 13.4 18.4 10.4 21.1 17.0

Table 8

Students of Accountancy Bodies

Student registered worldwide 2006 - 2009

Table 9 shows the number of students for all Bodies on a comparable basis. The figures exclude individuals who have passed their final admittance examination and completed their training contracts but have not yet applied for membership. These figures are not available pre-2006.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW 1 CAI 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
2008 287,815 82,737 2,828 13,728 5,575 2,672 395,355
2009 312,676 83,120 2,930 14,219 5,702 2,426 421,073
% growth (08-09) 8.6 0.5 3.6 3.6 2.3 -9.2 6.5
% growth (06-09) 33.3 3.2 -2.2 21.7 26.0 -10.4 25.0
% compound annual growth (06-09) 10.1 1.1 -0.7 6.8 8.0 -3.6 7.7

Table 9

  • There continue to be wide differences in the numbers and rates of growth in the student membership worldwide of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies.
  • Student numbers grew by 6.5% in 2009 primarily due to the growth in overseas students. (Table 12). The 9.2% decline in ICAS students between 2008 and 2009 can be largely explained by the UK economic climate. 98.6% of the ICAS student population is based in the UK and ROI (Table 12). Therefore the decline in student numbers is more evident than for those bodies that have a greater proportion of students in the rest of the world.
  • The growth in the student numbers between 2008 and 2009 is less than between 2007 and 2008. (9%)
  • ACCA, ICAEW and Chartered Accountants Ireland have all experienced growth rates of over 20% between 2006 and 2009. Of these bodies, ACCA has seen the most significant growth. The remaining tables and charts in Section 3 and any reference to students are based on the figures in Table
  1. Table 11 includes all students (Table 9) and individuals who have passed their final admittance examination and completed all necessary practical training but have not yet applied for membership. (Table 10)

Number of Individuals

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2008 19,642 8,787 57 2,437 383 794 32,100
2009 21,747 9,789 48 2,298 469 693 35,044

Table 10

Students and Individuals combined

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455
2009 334,423 92,909 2,978 16,517 6,171 3,119 456,117

Table 11

Location of Students

Table 12 shows the location 9 (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2008 and 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland 2008 86,515 56,427 2,849 14,560 5,947 3,437 169,735
2009 88,082 54,373 2,913 14,206 6,171 3,075 168,820
Rest of the World 2008 220,942 35,097 36 1,605 11 29 257,720
2009 246,341 38,536 65 2,311 0 44 287,297
TOTAL 2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455
2009 334,423 92,909 2,978 16,517 6,171 3,119 456,117

Table 12

  • Student numbers in the UK and Republic of Ireland have fallen by 0.5% since last year.
  • In contrast student numbers in the Rest of the World have increased by 11.5% in 2009. This increase can be attributed to ACCA and CIMA who represent 86% and 13% of the student population outside of the UK and ROI respectively.
  • CIPFA, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAS continue to have the lowest proportion of students based outside of the UK and ROI.

Table 12 shows the location10 (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2008 and 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland 2008 86,515 56,427 2,849 14,560 5,947 3,437
2009 88,082 54,373 2,913 14,206 6,171 3,075
Rest of the World 2008 220,942 35,097 36 1,605 11 29
2009 246,341 38,536 65 2,311 0 44
TOTAL 2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466
2009 334,423 92,909 2,978 16,517 6,171 3,119

Table 12

  • Student numbers in the UK and Republic of Ireland have fallen by 0.5% since last year.
  • In contrast student numbers in the Rest of the World have increased by 11.5% in 2009. This increase can be attributed to ACCA and CIMA who represent 86% and 13% of the student population outside of the UK and ROI respectively.
  • CIPFA, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAS continue to have the lowest proportion of students based outside of the UK and ROI.

Profile of Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide 2009

Table 13 sets out on a worldwide basis the length of time that individuals have been registered as students with the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies.

Length of time since registering as a Student ACCA CIMA11 CIPFA ICAEW12 CAI ICAS TOTAL
< 1 Year 80,827 17,561 1,189 4,722 1,432 720 106,451
< 2 but > 1 Years 70,779 14,274 413 4,188 1,502 941 92,097
< 3 but > 2 Years 39,994 9,952 263 3,920 1,526 919 56,574
< 4 but > 3 Years 38,475 8,031 232 3,165 1,313 432 51,648
< 5 but > 4 Years 27,700 6,637 182 345 398 73 35,335
> 5 Years 76,648 36,454 699 177 0 34 114,012
TOTAL 334,423 92,909 2,978 16,517 6,171 3,119 456,117

Table 13

  • 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 a large number of students at some of the bodies 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 2009

Table 14 compares the age profile of students for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as a percentage of their total student membership as at 31 December 2009.

ACCA13 CIMA CIPFA ICAEW13 CAI ICAS TOTAL
Under 25 26 20 7 51 51 58 26
25 - 34 52 50 40 44 47 40 51
35 - 44 17 22 26 4 2 1 17
45 and over 5 8 18 1 0 0 5
Unknown 0 0 9 0 0 1 1
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 14

  • CIPFA and CIMA have a higher proportion of mature students than the other Bodies. CIPFA having 44% and CIMA 30% of students aged 35 and older.
  • ICAEW, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAS have the highest proportion of students aged 34 and under.
  • Whilst the table above shows that 77% of the overall student numbers were aged 34 or younger, Charts 10 to 15 shows that, for most of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies, the average age of their students has increased between 2004 and 2009.

Age comparison of Students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2004 – 2009

The following charts compare the age distribution of students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2004 and 2009.

Change in age profile for ACCA students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing ACCA student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis. For Under 25, 2004 is higher than 2009. For 25-34, 2009 is higher than 2004. For 35-44 and 45 and over, 2009 is higher than 2004, but at lower percentages.

Chart 10

Change in age profile for CIMA students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing CIMA student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis. For Under 25, 2009 is slightly higher than 2004. For 25-34, 2004 is higher than 2009. For 35-44 and 45 and over, 2009 is higher than 2004, but at lower percentages.

Chart 11

Change in age profile for CIPFA students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing CIPFA student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over, and Unknown. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis.

Chart 12

Change in age profile for ICAEW students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing ICAEW student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis.

Chart 13

Change in age profile for Chartered Accountants Ireland students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing Chartered Accountants Ireland student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis.

Chart 14

Change in age profile for ICAS students 2004 and 2009

A bar chart comparing ICAS student age profiles in 2004 and 2009. Categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over, and Unknown. Percentages are shown on the Y-axis.

Chart 15

Sectoral employment of students worldwide 2009

Table 15 shows the sectoral employment of worldwide students of each of the accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS14 TOTAL
Public Practice 67,291 0 0 14,314 5,527 2,996 90,128
Industry & Commerce 165,631 74,401 79 405 246 123 240,885
Public Sector 43,883 15,960 2,899 224 15 0 62,981
Other15 57,618 2,548 0 1,574 383 0 62,123
TOTAL 334,423 92,909 2,978 16,517 6,171 3,119 456,117

Table 15

  • ICAEW, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAS (taken together) have 88% of their students in public practice. In contrast only 20% of ACCA's students are employed in public practice.
  • Of the employment sectors the public sector has the smallest proportion of overall students at 14%, compared with 20% for public practice and 53% for industry and commerce.
  • Whilst 50% of ACCA's students are employed in industry and commerce, their students continue to be the most widely dispersed across the various employment sectors of the profession.

Gender of students worldwide 2009

Table 16 shows the percentage of female students of each of the accountancy bodies worldwide as at 31 December 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI16 ICAS16 TOTAL
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
2008 50 45 48 41 53 47 49
2009 50 44 50 41 53 47 48

Table 16

  • The total proportion of female students worldwide has remained constant between 2004 and 2009.
  • The biggest changes for the bodies are that the ICAEW percentage of female students has fallen by 3%, whilst the ICAS percentage has risen by 3% between 2004 and 2009. The ACCA is the only body where the percentage of female students has remained unchanged over the last 6 years.
  • The percentage of female students remains significantly higher than the percentage of female members (see Table 5)

Graduate entrants to training with the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies

Chart 16 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each body who, at the time of registration as students, were (i) graduates of any discipline and of those, (ii) graduates who held a relevant degree, or (iii) graduates who held a post-graduate qualification.

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 holding a degree, a relevant degree or a Post-Graduate qualification in 2009

A bar chart showing the percentage of students holding various qualifications (Degree, Relevant Degree, Post-Graduate) across ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS in 2009.

Chart 16

  • 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)
  • Around one in six of ACCA and Chartered Accountants Ireland students hold a post-graduate qualification. CIPFA and ICAS are currently unable to provide this information.
  • Chartered Accountants Ireland have a larger percentage of students holding relevant degrees due to:
    • the recruitment strategy of firms in Ireland which tend to favour such graduates;
    • Chartered Accountants Ireland accrediting a number of relevant masters' programmes which upon completion shorten the length of a student's training contract; and
    • Irish universities historically having strong business faculties.

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, Finance, and Accounting & Finance
  • CAI: Accountancy, Business & Commerce, Finance
  • ICAS: Accountancy

Pass rates 2007- 2009

Table 17 shows the percentage of candidates who passed the final examination, for the period 2007 to 2009 and the percentage of those that were first time passes.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS
2007 47 54 71 79 83 74
Percentage of passes at the final examination 2008 48 55 70 77 76
2009 44 59 70 75 76
2007 52 60 N/A 61 74 N/A
Percentage of those passes that were first time passes 2008 51 54 N/A 85 82
2009 43 63 N/A 84 74

Table 17

  • It is important to note that the pass rates recorded in Table 17 are difficult to compare both across the bodies and year on year.
  • The syllabus and the topics examined at each stage of each bodies' qualification differ and this makes comparability of pass rates at the final examination difficult.
  • The composition of the student populations across the bodies varies significantly reflecting a number of factors including entrance level requirements of the bodies and/or firms and international reach of the bodies.

Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

There are six Bodies17 in the UK recognised to offer the audit qualification in line with the requirements of Schedule 11 to the Companies Act

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

Table 18 below shows the number of students registered with each RQB as at 31 December 2009, and the number of students following the audit route who would be eligible for the recognised professional qualification if successful.

ACCA AIA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS
Number of students in the UK and ROI 88,082 270 2,913 14,206 6,171 3,075
Number of students following the audit route or eligible for the recognised professional qualification N/A18 1 0 12,161 5,089 N/A
Number of students who became members during 2009 (Worldwide) 8,934 42 332 3,418 1,093 863
The number of members who were awarded the recognised professional qualification 111 0 0 192180 998 2027
Total number of approved training offices in the UK and ROI 5,404 133 0 2,659 828 20168
Total number of training offices in the UK and ROI approved for training audit students 4,061 0 0 212,062 578 N/A

Table 18

With the exception of the ICAEW, the number of members awarded the audit qualification is much smaller than the number of students becoming members. 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.

FOUR - OTHER INFORMATION ON THE SIX CHARTERED ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2004 - 2009

Table 19 and Chart 17 shows the income of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in £m over the period 2004 – 2009.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI22 ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 104.5 43.1 40.5 73.6 29.5 15.1 306.3
2009 119.0 42.7 40.6 73.7 25.6 16.7 318.3

Table 19

Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies between 2004 and 2009

A line chart showing the income of six Chartered Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS) in £M from 2004 to 2009. ACCA shows a significant upward trend.

Chart 17

  • Chart 17 and Table 19 show the most significant increase in income is for ACCA whose income has risen at a compound annual rate of 14.8% over the period 2004 to 2009. This can be attributed to the growth in number of members and students. (Table 2, Table 9 and Table 11)
  • The compound annual growth rate of the income of all the bodies was 9% in the period of 2004 to 2009. The equivalent growth rate for the period 2003 to 2008 was 9.7%.

Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2009

A bar chart comparing the income and costs for various accountancy bodies (ICAS, CAI, ICAEW, CIPFA, CIMA, ACCA) for the year ended 31 December 2009. Costs are generally lower than income for most bodies.

Chart 18

  • All but one body achieved a small surplus of income over expenditure in 2009; CIPFA reported a small deficit.

The analysis of income for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in 2009

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage breakdown of income sources (Fees & Subscriptions, Education & Exam Fees, Regulation & Discipline, Commercial Activities, Other including Investment Income) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS in 2009.

Chart 19

  • Fees and subscriptions taken together with education and exam fees from members and students are the main sources of income for each of the bodies other than CIPFA. CIPFA derives significant income from its trading subsidiary which has been included within the commercial activities category in Chart 19.
  • Income from commercial activities includes income from activities such as conferences, training courses and publications.
  • Other income includes investment income.

Staffing of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2004 – 2009

Table 20 shows the number of staff (full time equivalent) employed by the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide over the period 2004 to 2009.

ACCA CIMA23 CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2004 640 238 321 491 104 137 1,931
2005 694 246 313 538 104 135 2,030
2006 727 250 319 541 114 137 2,088
2007 763 265 314 579 129 143 2,193
2008 824 283 308 623 135 142 2,315
2009 902 362 304 599 133 129 2,429

Table 20

  • The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy Bodies has increased by a net 25.8%23 for the 2004 to 2009 period despite an increase in independent regulation. This increase in staff is largely accounted for by ACCA, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAEW who have shown an increase of 41%, 28% and 22% respectively. In contrast CIPFA and ICAS have had a reduction in staff numbers compared to 2004.
  • ACCA is the only body that has seen an increase in staff between 2008 and 2009.
  • The bodies have in the past recruited staff in order to improve services to members and students. The overall decrease in staff numbers is a response to income being less than planned due to the recession.

|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---| | 2004 | 640 | 238 | 321 | 491 | 104 | 137 | 1,931 | | 2005 | 694 | 246 | 313 | 538 | 104 | 135 | 2,030 | | 2006 | 727 | 250 | 319 | 541 | 114 | 137 | 2,088 | | 2007 | 763 | 265 | 314 | 579 | 129 | 143 | 2,193 | | 2008 | 824 | 283 | 308 | 623 | 135 | 142 | 2,315 | | 2009 | 902 | 362 | 304 | 599 | 133 | 129 | 2,429 |

Table 20

  • The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy Bodies has increased by a net 25.8%23 for the 2004 to 2009 period despite an increase in independent regulation. This increase in staff is largely accounted for by ACCA, Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAEW who have shown an increase of 41%, 28% and 22% respectively. In contrast CIPFA and ICAS have had a reduction in staff numbers compared to 2004.
  • ACCA is the only body that has seen an increase in staff between 2008 and 2009.
  • The bodies have in the past recruited staff in order to improve services to members and students. The overall decrease in staff numbers is a response to income being less than planned due to the recession.

SECTION FIVE AUDIT FIRMS

Introductory Note: Major Audit Firms

Tables 21 to 23 show fee income for audit and non-audit services for many of the larger registered audit firms for the years 2007-9. 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 Companies Act 2006, as applied to Limited Liability Partnerships and file these at Companies House.

In addition, firms which have audit clients whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market are required to produce a transparency statement. This meets the requirements of the Statutory Auditors (Transparency) Instrument which implements a requirement of the Statutory Audit Directive24. As at 31 May 2010, of the 32 larger registered audit firms in table 21, the 22 registered audit firms who are required by the above regulation to produce a statement have done so.

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 sufficiently reliable information in the desired form. It is likely therefore that there are firms not included in the tables that have a higher audit fee income than some of those that are shown. Also, we have not included accountancy firms that are not registered as statutory auditors.

Total audit fee income of all firms that submitted data to us continued to grow in 2008-09 but only slowly and at a much slower rate than previous years. The growth rate of audit income for the Big Four firms was slightly higher than that for other firms (Table 24). It is not possible to make reliable detailed comparisons between firms using the information in Tables 21 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 20 shows the split of fee income for the Big Four firms for the six years to 2009 based on the detailed information in the fee income tables (Tables 21-23) and similar tables in both the 6th and 7th editions of Key Facts and Trends. Chart 20 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. The APB issued its 'Consultation on Audit Firms providing audit services to listed companies that they audit' in October 2009. This document discusses trends since the APB issued the Ethical Standards for Auditors in October 2004. It seems likely that a number of factors have contributed to the fall in fees for non-audit services to audit clients including more active audit committee involvement and more demanding ethical standards both in the UK and overseas.
  • Chart 21 shows the change in the split of fee income for many of the larger firms outside the Big Four (as included within Tables 21-23). The trend in fee income over the past five years is consistent with that of the Big Four. (Chart 20); with fee income from non-audit work to audit clients declining over the period shown.
  • Total fee income for many of the larger registered audit firms grew at a much slower rate and in some cases stopped growing in 2008-9 compared with 2007-8. The growth rate of Big Four firms in 2008-9 is slightly higher than that of the Non Big Four firms. (Table 24)
  • 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 since 2004, (Charts 20 and 21), the total fee income from audit per Responsible Individual (RI) has risen. The increase is greater for RIs in Non Big Four firms than in Big Four firms (Table 25). Almost a third of RI's are now employers rather than principals.
  • There has been a small increase in the proportion of listed companies audited by non Big Four firms in 2009-10 compared with previous years. (Table 28)
  • The figures for ‘Other clients listed on Regulated Markets' (Table 27) include clients which have equity listed on one or more regulated markets. These figures are not directly comparable with the figures reported in the same column for 2007 which covered 'Other Main Market Audit Clients' and where the securities listed on the London Stock Exchange included both equity and debt.

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS - YEAR ENDED 2009 (By fee income from audit)

UK Firm Name UK Structure Year End No of Principals25 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals26 Fee Income: Audit27 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work27 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m) Total Fee Income (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-09 873 269 382 586 411 1,251 2,248
KPMG28 LLP 30-Sep-09 569 157 254 455 282 889 1,626
Deloitte29 LLP 31-May-09 671 192 216 409 203 1,357 1,969
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-09 506 140 223 302 227 854 1,383
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-09 280 98 114 112 40 226 378
BDO30 LLP 30-Jun-09 235 87 113 97 51 158 306
Baker Tilly31 LLP 31-Mar-09 276 118 118 63 37 103 203
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-09 98 54 54 59 38 44 141
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-09 105 55 62 43 14 44 101
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-09 69 44 45 25 11 11 47
RSM Bentley Jennisons32 Partnership 31-Dec-09 71 28 32 15 9 50 74
Tenon Audit Company 30-Jun-09 4 3 46 15 0 0 15
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Company 30-Apr-09 42 34 34 14 0 48 62
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-09 60 26 28 14 5 38 57
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-09 49 42 2 12 8 12 32
MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-09 50 34 34 11 NA NA 31
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-09 146 92 95 10 8 40 58
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-09 88 56 58 10 6 29 45
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-09 3 3 55 10 0 0 10
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP 30-Jun-09 51 24 24 8 2 16 26
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-09 24 20 22 8 4 4 16
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-09 54 31 31 7 4 24 35
Menzies33 LLP 31-Mar-09 34 20 20 6 6 14 26
Littlejohn3435 LLP 31-May-09 28 16 16 6 3 9 18
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-09 45 14 20 5 NA NA 23
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-09 23 10 12 5 4 6 15
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-09 18 7 8 5 1 7 13
James Cowper36 LLP 30-Apr-09 17 8 8 2 2 5 9
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-09 7 4 4 2 0 4 6
DTE Business Advisory Company 30-Apr-09 6 3 10 2 1 3 6
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-09 35 7 7 1 NA NA 19
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-09 5 4 4 1 NA 1 2

Table 21

FEE INCOME OF MANY OF THE LARGER REGISTERED AUDIT FIRMS - YEAR ENDED 2008 (By fee income from audit)

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals25 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals26 Fee Income: Audit27 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work27 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m) Total Fee Income (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-08 853 267 378 593 459 1,192 2,244
KPMG28 LLP 30-Sep-08 571 178 284 427 282 910 1,619
Deloitte293738 LLP 31-May-08 677 203 216 368 245 1,397 2,010
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-08 513 150 227 338 208 736 1,282
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-08 315 118 135 115 42 237 394
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-08 246 99 133 94 72 159 325
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-08 98 60 60 62 37 44 143
Baker Tilly31 LLP 31-Mar-08 269 120 115 61 36 108 205
Mazars39 LLP 31-Aug-08 104 55 61 42 16 46 104
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-08 68 46 46 26 10 11 47
RSM Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-08 71 31 29 15 10 49 74
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit40 Company 30-Apr-08 41 33 33 14 NA 47 61
Tenon Audit41 Company 30-Jun-08 4 3 51 14 0 0 14
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-08 61 30 32 13 4 36 53
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-08 86 57 60 10 4 28 43
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-08 134 101 104 10 7 43 60
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-08 49 42 38 10 6 13 29
MacIntyre Hudson42 LLP 31-Mar-08 47 34 34 10 NA NA 27
Vantis Audit plc43 Plc 31-May-08 3 3 57 10 0 0 10
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP 30-Jun-08 47 21 21 8 2 15 25
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-08 24 18 22 8 4 4 16
Littlejohn3435 LLP 31-May-08 30 16 16 7 3 8 18
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-08 54 31 31 6 4 25 35
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-08 35 21 21 5 6 14 25
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-08 24 10 14 5 4 7 16
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-08 19 7 7 5 2 6 13
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-08 38 15 21 5 NA NA 20
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-08 16 9 9 2 1 6 9
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-08 7 4 4 2 0 4 6
DTE Business Advisory Company 30-Apr-08 8 3 10 2 1 3 6
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-08 36 7 7 1 NA NA 19
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-08 5 4 4 1 NA 1 2

Table 22

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 Principals25 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals26 Fee Income: Audit27 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work27 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m) Total Fee Income (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-07 822 264 360 595 431 1,081 2,107
KPMG28 LLP 30-Sep-07 559 249 317 423 264 920 1,607
Deloitte & Touche3738 LLP 31-May-07 651 202 209 339 255 1,208 1,802
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-07 481 153 222 332 166 728 1,226
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-07 226 98 132 97 56 133 286
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-07 249 96 106 81 40 193 315
Baker Tilly Partnership 31-Mar-07 269 132 132 59 33 95 187
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-07 95 58 58 54 35 42 130
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-07 104 57 59 34 9 37 80
Horwath Clark Whitehill44 LLP 31-Mar-07 62 42 42 19 10 12 41
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit45 Company 30-Apr-07 39 33 34 14 0 43 56
RSM Bentley Jennison46 Partnership 31-Dec-07 68 30 34 13 10 42 64
Tenon Audit41 Company 30-Jun-07 4 3 54 13 0 0 13
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-07 64 32 12 4 33 49
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-07 82 45 52 10 5 25 40
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-07 129 92 93 9 6 39 54
Kingston Smith4748 LLP 30-Apr-07 45 41 37 9 6 11 26
MacIntyre Hudson42 LLP 31-Mar-07 46 30 30 9 NA NA 24
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-07 29 16 16 8 2 7 17
HLB Vantis Audit plc43 Plc 31-May-07 3 3 58 8 0 0 8
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP 30-Jun-07 50 24 24 7 2 14 23
Hays Macintyre Partnership 31-Mar-07 24 18 22 7 3 4 14
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-07 53 30 30 6 4 21 32
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-07 41 22 22 5 11 15 30
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-07 21 8 10 5 3 7 14
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-07 21 11 11 5 2 6 13
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-07 40 17 21 4 NA NA 18
James Cowper38 Partnership 30-Apr-07 15 10 10 2 1 6 9
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-07 7 4 4 2 0 4 6
DTE Business Advisory Services Company 30-Apr-07 11 5 11 2 1 3 6
Jeffreys Henry LLP 30-Apr-07 8 6 6 2 1 2 5
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-07 35 7 7 1 NA NA 18
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-07 5 4 4 1 NA 1 2

Table 23

Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals49 No of Audit Principals50 No of Responsible Individuals51 Fee Income: Audit (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m) Total Fee Income (£m)
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-07 35 7 7 1 NA NA 18
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-07 5 4 4 1 NA 1 2

Table 23

Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income (2004-2009)

Bar chart showing the percentage breakdown of Audit Fee Income, Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee income from Non-Audit Clients for Big 4 firms from 2004 to 2009.

  • 2004: Audit Fee Income 52%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 26%, Non-Audit Clients 22%
  • 2005: Audit Fee Income 53%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 26%, Non-Audit Clients 21%
  • 2006: Audit Fee Income 55%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 26%, Non-Audit Clients 19%
  • 2007: Audit Fee Income 58%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 25%, Non-Audit Clients 17%
  • 2008: Audit Fee Income 59%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 24%, Non-Audit Clients 17%
  • 2009: Audit Fee Income 60%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 24%, Non-Audit Clients 16%

Chart 20

Note: The definition used of ‘audit-services' and ‘non-audit services' is set out in paragraph 6 of the Auditing Practices Board's ‘Ethical Standard 5'

Analysis of the Fee Income (2004-2009) of many of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four

Bar chart showing the percentage breakdown of Audit Fee Income, Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee income from Non-Audit Clients for larger registered audit firms outside the Big Four from 2004 to 2009.

  • 2004: Audit Fee Income 53%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 30%, Non-Audit Clients 18%
  • 2005: Audit Fee Income 51%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 29%, Non-Audit Clients 20%
  • 2006: Audit Fee Income 51%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 30%, Non-Audit Clients 18%
  • 2007: Audit Fee Income 53%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 31%, Non-Audit Clients 16%
  • 2008: Audit Fee Income 54%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 31%, Non-Audit Clients 16%
  • 2009: Audit Fee Income 53%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 33%, Non-Audit Clients 15%

Chart 21

Growth of Fee Income

Table 24 shows the growth rate of fee income between 2005 and 2009 for many of the largest registered audit firms with clients which are defined as UK public interest entities. This information is split further between the Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four and between audit and non-audit income.

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

Growth Rate % 2008-9 2007-8 2006-7 2005-6
Total fee income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients49 0.8 7.0 10.2 13.8
Total fee income for the Big Four Firms 1.0 6.1 10.1 14.2
Total fee income for the Non Big Four Firms -1.8 7.6 10.5 11.7
Audit income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients49 0.9 5.2 8.2 10.8
Audit income for the Big Four Firms 1.5 2.2 6.8 9.6
Audit income for the Non Big Four Firms 0.5 8.1 14.0 15.6
Non-audit income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients49 0.2 8.6 10.9 15.1
Non-audit income for the Big Four Firms 0.8 7.4 11.3 15.9
Non-audit income for the Non Big Four Firms -3.0 7.3 8.9 10.5

Table 24

  • The growth in both audit fee income and non-audit fee income almost completely disappeared in 2008-9 and in some firms fee income has decreased. This is likely to be a reflection of the full impact of the economic downturn. The first signs of the downturn were reflected in the slower rate of growth in total fee income in 2007-08 as compared with previous years.
  • Audit fee income of both the Big Four firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four has held up slightly better than non-audit income in 2008-09. This will reflect the fact that clients' expenditure on non-audit services is more discretionary.
  • The rate of growth for both audit and non-audit fee income in 2008-09 is higher within the Big Four firms than for Non Big Four firms.

Audit Fee Income per Responsible Individual

Table 2550 illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI)51 for 2005 to 2009 (inclusive). This information is split further between the Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.

| Audit Fee Income Per RI (£m) | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | |:------------------------------------------------------------|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----| | Largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients | 1.08 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.89 | | Big Four Firms | 1.63 | 1.56 | 1.52 | 1.47 | 1.35 | | Non Big Four Firms | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.37 |

Table 25

  • Audit fee income generated per RI has grown between 2004 and 2009 for both Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.
  • Audit fee income per RI has increased by 10.4% between 2008 and 2009 for the largest firms outside the Big Four compared with an increase of 4.5% for Big Four audit firms.

Responsible Individual Status

Table 2652 shows the percentage of RIs for 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) within the Big Four firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four who are audit principals53 and who are employed. 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
2004 78.4% 21.6%
2005 80.5% 19.5%
2006 79.6% 20.4%
2007 78.3% 21.7%
2008 72.2% 27.8%
2009 70.5% 29.5%

Table 26

  • The percentage of Responsible Individuals who are employees has increased more slowly in 2009 for the Big Four firms. This follows a sharp increase in 2008 and continues a trend of increases from 2005 onwards.
  • The percentage of employee Responsible Individuals within the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four firms shows a substantial decrease in both 2008 and 2009 and the difference is more marked than previously.

CONCENTRATION OF LISTED COMPANIES' AUDITS - YEAR ENDED 2009

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

UK Firm Name UK Structure Year End No of FTSE 100 Audit Clients55 No of FTSE 250 Audit Clients55 Total No of Other Clients listed on Regulated Markets55 No of AIM Audit Clients55
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-09 40 67 210 138
KPMG56 LLP 30-Sep-09 24 47 184 81
Deloitte57,58 LLP 31-May-09 2259 6859 16959 12359
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-09 14 48 301 58
BDO LLP 30-Jun-09 1 6 30 139
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-09 0 6 83 189
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-09 0 1 2 N/A
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-09 0 0 44 51
Baker Tilly LLP 31-Mar-09 0 0 20 78
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-09 0 0 6 15
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-09 0 0 5 21
James Cowper60 LLP 30-Apr-09 0 0 5 0
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-09 0 0 4 4
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Company 30-Apr-09 0 0 4 33
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-09 0 0 4 28
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-09 0 0 3 0
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-09 0 0 3 17
Chantrey Vellacott DFK61 LLP 30-Jun-09 0 0 3 10
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-09 0 0 2 9
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-09 0 0 2 6
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-09 0 0 1 16
Menzies62 LLP63 31-Mar-09 0 0 1 3
Littlejohn64 LLP 31-May-09 0 0 0 17
Tenon Audit65 Limited Company 30-Jun-09 0 0 0 9
RSM Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-09 0 0 0 7
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-09 0 0 0 7
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-09 0 0 0 4
MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-09 0 0 0 2
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-09 0 0 0 0
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-09 0 0 0 0
DTE Business Advisory Limited Company 30-Apr-09 0 0 0 0
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-09 0 0 0 0

Table 27

Concentration of listed Companies' Audits

Table 28 illustrates the percentage of the number of audits undertaken by the Big Four 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 28, 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 (%)
28/02/10 | 28/02/09 | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07 28/02/10 | 28/02/09 | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07 28/02/10 | 28/02/09 | 28/02/08 | 28/02/07
FTSE 10066 99.0 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
FTSE 25066 94.8 | 94.4 | 96.0 | 96.8 4.4 | 5.2 | 4.0 | 2.8 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.4
Other UK Main Market 67.6 | 70.8 | 72.3 | 75.4 23.9 | 21.2 | 20.1 | 17.7 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.6 | 6.9
All Main Market 77.3 | 78.7 | 79.9 | 82.3 16.9 | 15.7 | 14.8 | 12.9 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.3 | 4.8

Table 28

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 2009)

Table 29 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)
1 to 4 1,547,241
5 to 9 237,705
10 to 30 25,614
31 to 100 8,215
101 to 500 2,474
501 to 1000 1,026
1001 to 2000 488
2001 to 3000 209
3001 to 4115 50

Table 29

Table 29 illustrates that approximately 85% of the total fee income of audit firms registered with the ICAEW is attributable to the Big Four. The information in Table 29 is not directly comparable with the figures within Tables 21-23 which consolidate the income of all the entities through which a firm operates i.e. both audit registered entities and other entities.

Third Country Auditor Registration (As at 31 May 2010)

Following the coming into force in the UK of the requirements of the Statutory Audit Directive in July 2008, the auditors of companies outside the European Union that have securities admitted to trading on UK regulated markets are required to register with the Professional Oversight Board for their audit to be valid for UK regulatory purposes.

Tables 30 and 31 below shows the number of firms that have registered by country and the number of relevant audit clients. There are two types of registration. Firms from countries that have systems of public oversight of audit regulation or have plans to introduce such arrangements can register under the European Commission's transitional regime, where they provide certain information. Audit firms from other countries must register under the ‘Article 45' requirements of the Directive. There is more information on our web-site at http://www.frc.org.uk/pob/regulation/third_party_entity/terms_conditions.cfm.

'Article 45' Registration No of Audit Firms No of Relevant Clients
Bahrain 1 3
Barbados 1 1
Egypt 1 7
Georgia 1 1
Kenya 1 1
Kuwait 2 3
Lebanon 3 7
Netherlands Antilles 1 1
Nigeria 3 1
Oman 1 1
Papua New Guinea 1 1
Saudi Arabia 1 1
Vietnam 1 1
Zimbabwe 1 1
TOTAL 19 30

Table 30

Transitional Registration No of Audit Firms No of Relevant Clients
Argentina 2 2
Australia 4 23
Bahamas 1 1
Bermuda 3 4
Canada 4 11
Cayman Islands 2 5
Chile 1 1
China 1 2
Croatia 2 3
Hong Kong 6 8
India 2 4
Indonesia 1 1
Israel 5 8
Japan 5 35
Kazakhstan 2 11
New Zealand 1 2
Pakistan 2 3
Russia 6 38
Singapore 2 3
South Africa 4 12
South Korea 3 11
Switzerland 3 6
Turkey 3 7
Ukraine 1 0
United Arab Emirates 4 8
USA 4 24
TOTAL 74 233

Table 31

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

The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2010 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.

  1. The ICAEW includes members working within the charity sector under ‘Other’. ↩↩↩

  2. '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. In the case of Chartered Accountants Ireland, all such members are included in their most recent employment category. ↩↩

  3. The percentage of female members for the Chartered Accountants Ireland in 2008 has been restated. ↩↩↩

  4. The age is not known for 71 CIPFA members. ↩↩

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

  6. The number of sole practitioners registered with ACCA as at 31 December 2003 is not available; we have therefore used the figure as at 31 December 2004. ↩

  7. The data above was taken from the Companies House publication ‘Statistical Tables on Companies Registration Activities 2008-09' which can be found on their website. ↩↩

  8. The Statutory Audit Directive was implemented in the Republic of Ireland on 24 May 2010. ↩

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

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

  11. Individuals who are entitled to membership but have not yet been admitted (passed finalists) are included in the figures according to the length of time they have been either a student or a passed finalist. ↩

  12. The ICAEW figure excludes 132 students who registered and cancelled within 2009, or who registered and were admitted to membership before 31 December. ↩

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

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

  15. '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. ↩

  16. Chartered Accountants Ireland and ICAS figures refer to the proportion of females in the student intake, not in the student body as a whole. ↩↩

  17. 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) Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) ↩

  18. Where N/A is stated the information is not collected by the body. ↩

  19. ICAEW figure includes 1,702 students admitted to membership who were granted the audit qualification through application. A further 478 members were granted the audit qualification who met eligibility requirements. ↩

  20. ICAS figure includes a number of group authorisations. ICAS treats group authorisations as one office. The 168 approved training offices noted above include 31 group authorisations covering 160 individual offices. ↩↩

  21. This figure includes 1,325 authorised training offices able to provide sufficient audit experience for their students to be awarded the audit qualification on admittance to membership. ↩

  22. Chartered Accountants Ireland income has been converted from Euros at the year end 31 December 2009 rate of £1.00 = €1.126. ↩

  23. Please note that CIMA staff for 2007 onwards have been included on a global basis. Prior to this the figures only included the UK and ROI. ↩↩↩

  24. Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts. ↩

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

  26. RIs are those individuals who are able to sign audit reports ↩↩↩

  27. The definition used of 'audit-services' and 'non-audit services' is set out in paragraph 6 of the Auditing Practices Board's ‘Ethical Standard 5' ↩↩↩↩↩↩

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

  29. Name changed from Deloitte & Touche LLP as of 1 December 2008 ↩↩

  30. Name changed from BDO Stoy Hayward from 1 October 2009 ↩

  31. Includes both Baker Tilly and Baker Tilly UK Holdings Ltd ↩↩

  32. RSM Bentley Jennison merged with Tenon Audit on 29 December 2009 and is now called RSM Tenon Audit. ↩

  33. Menzies changed from a Partnership to an LLP with effect from 1 July 2008 ↩

  34. Name changed from CLB Littlejohn Frazer with effect from 31 January 2009 ↩↩

  35. Littlejohn changed from a Partnership to an LLP with effect from 31 January 2009 ↩↩

  36. James Cowper has changed its structure from a Partnership to an LLP with effect from 2 February 2009 ↩

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

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

  39. Changed from Partnership to LLP in April 2007 ↩

  40. Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit do not separately monitor this. ↩

  41. Tenon Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as the firm only provides audit services. ↩↩

  42. Where NA is stated the information is not available ↩↩

  43. Vantis Audit's fee income for non-audit work is nil as the firm only provides audit services. ↩↩

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

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

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

  47. Kingston Smith changed to an LLP from 1 May 2006 ↩

  48. In their 2008 submission Kingston Smith have amended these figures. ↩

  49. 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. ↩↩↩↩

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

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

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

  53. An audit principal is an audit partner or both a partner and a member of an LLP. ↩

  54. Figures have not been included as complete data for the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four in 2004 is not available. ↩

  55. The number of clients reported relates to entities whether incorporated in the UK or elsewhere that are audit clients of the UK firm and other member firms. ↩↩↩↩

  56. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  57. Figures are as at 31 October 2009 ↩

  58. Name changed from Deloitte & Touche LLP as of 1 December 2008. ↩

  59. In previous years figures reported were for UK incorporated audit clients of Deloitte LLP only. ↩↩↩↩

  60. James Cowper has changed its structure from a Partnership to an LLP with effect from 2 February 2009 ↩

  61. Chantrey Vellacott DFK changed from a Partnership to an LLP in 2009 ↩

  62. Menzies changed from a Partnership to an LLP with effect from 1 July 2008 ↩

  63. Name changed from CLB Littlejohn Frazer with effect from 31 January 2009 ↩

  64. Changed from Partnership to an LLP with effect from 31 January 2009 ↩

  65. Tenon Audit merged with RSM Bentley Jennison with effect from 29 December 2009 and is now called RSM Tenon Audit ↩

  66. Includes International Main Market Companies. ↩↩

File

Name Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession 2010
Publication date 27 September 2023
Type Report
Format PDF, 1.6 MB
Download original
Back to top