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 2009

Contents

Chair's Foreword

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

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the unified independent regulator for the accounting, audit and actuarial professions setting standards for corporate reporting and actuarial practice and monitoring and enforcing accounting and auditing standards. Within the FRC, the Professional Oversight Board (POB) is the operating body responsible for:

  • Independent oversight of the regulation of the auditing profession by the Recognised Supervisory and Qualifying Bodies;
  • Monitoring 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; and
  • Independent oversight of the regulation of the actuarial profession by the professional actuarial Bodies and promoting high quality actuarial work. This document covers all the accountancy Bodies where the POB has oversight responsibilities. 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 2008.

'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.

The accountancy profession is not immune from the effects of the recession. Some of the information we are publishing is in respect of periods before the full extent of the financial turmoil became clear. Growth in fee income for the largest registered audit firms has been more modest than in previous years and we would anticipate this to be more apparent in the next edition. Nevertheless the profession remains attractive 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 comments on what information you think may improve future editions. Your comments should be sent to James Calder ([email protected]). Further information about the FRC and its operating Bodies including the POB is available at www.frc.org.uk.

Dame Barbara Mills DBE QC Chair of the Professional Oversight Board June 2009

1. Main Highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2003 - 2008

  • Accountancy continues to flourish and grow in the UK. The six Chartered Bodies have over 286,000 members and over 169,000 students in the UK and Republic of Ireland. In 2008 membership grew by 3% and student numbers grew by 0.8%. (Table 1, Chart 1 and Table 11)
  • The six Chartered Bodies have over 389,000 members and over 395,000 students worldwide. The compound annual growth rate of members between 2003 and 2008 was 3.4%. Worldwide membership grew by 4.3% in 2008. (Table 2, Chart 2 and Table 10)
  • Worldwide, student numbers have been growing more quickly than membership numbers, (compound annual growth in members was 3.4% compared to 8.3% for students). Worldwide student numbers grew by 9% in 2008. (Tables 2 and 10)
  • 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 2008 (8,179) is 25.7% lower than the number in 2003 (11,006). However, the rate of decline has been less in recent years. The number of registered audit firms fell by 4.6% in 2008. (Table 7)
  • In comparison to the high number of students who become members, the proportion of members awarded the recognised professional qualification for audit is much smaller. (Table 16). 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 2003 - 2008

  • 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. (Chart 27)
  • Total fee income continued to grow strongly in 2007-8 but at a slightly slower rate than before. (Table 22). The growth rate of non Big Four firms was higher than that of the Big Four. This represents a change from previous years when the growth rate of the Big Four firms was faster. (Table 22)
  • Audit fee income per Responsible Individual in both the Big Four firms and the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four has grown in 2008 by 2.6% and 11.6% respectively. (Table 23)
  • Table 26 shows that there has been a 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 2003 – 2008

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 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2003 54,209 48,986 13,223 110,468 12,186 13,312 252,384
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
% growth (03-08) 24.7 24.3 1.1 2.1 33.2 15.1 13.4
% compound annual growth (03-08) 4.5 4.4 0.2 0.4 5.9 2.9 2.5

Table 1

  • 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 252,000 in 2003 to over 286,000 in 2008. Membership grew by 3% in 2008.
  • 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 nearly 6% per year between 2003 and 2008. The memberships of ACCA and CIMA have also grown strongly over the same period.
  • 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 2003 - 2008 A bar chart showing the number of members for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS for each year from 2003 to

  1. Each body has a cluster of six bars, one for each year, showing the trend. ICAEW consistently has the highest number of members, over 100,000, followed by ACCA and CIMA. CIPFA, ICAI, and ICAS have significantly fewer members, all under 20,000. Overall, a general upward trend in membership numbers across most bodies is visible.

Members Worldwide 2003-2008

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 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 131,398 76,368 13,697 132,411 17,843 17,671 389,388
% growth (03-08) 33.7 22.5 1.4 5.4 31.7 12.2 18.3
% compound annual growth (03-08) 6.0 4.1 0.3 1.1 5.7 2.3 3.4

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. (3.4% compared with 2.5% average compound annual growth). Worldwide membership grew by 4.3% in 2008.
  • The worldwide growth rate is mainly driven by the strong growth of ACCA globally. 48.6% of ACCA's membership is outside of the UK and Republic of Ireland (2008). This compares with 44.8% in 2003. (Table 3)
  • The ICAI has also experienced a strong growth rate in total members due to its growth in members in the UK & ROI (Table 1). In contrast to ACCA the ICAI has only 9% of its total membership population outside of the UK & 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.

Chart 2: Members Worldwide 2003 - 2008 A bar chart depicting worldwide membership numbers for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS from 2003 to

  1. Similar to Chart 1, it shows six bars per body representing each year. ICAEW remains the largest with membership consistently above 120,000, followed by ACCA which shows significant growth to over 130,000 by 2008. CIMA is next, followed by CIPFA, ICAI, and ICAS, which all have membership figures under 20,000. The chart indicates a general increase in worldwide membership across most bodies over the period.

Members outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland 2003 – 2008

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 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 63,805 15,498 323 19,673 1,606 2,349 103,254
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2003 44.8 21.4 2.1 12.1 10.1 15.5 23.3
% of total worldwide membership outside UK/ROI 2008 48.6 20.3 2.4 14.9 9.0 13.3 26.5

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 2008

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 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW 4 ICAI ICAS TOTAL
Public Practice 29 2 3 31 33 29 24
Industry & Commerce 51 69 7 44 55 41 50
Public Sector 12 19 65 3 5 3 11
Retired 5 10 23 14 4 19 10
Other 5 3 0 2 8 3 8 5
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4

  • At the end of 2008 there were very few CIPFA members and CIMA members employed in public practice.
  • During 2008, for ACCA, CIMA and CIPFA there has been a transfer of members from industry and commerce into the public sector of around 2%.

Note: In previous years the ICAI number for Public Sector was combined within Industry and Commerce.

Gender of members worldwide 2003 - 2008

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 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 42 30 29 24 39 28 32

Table 5

  • The percentage of female members of all six Chartered Accountancy Bodies has risen over the past six years from 27% in 2003 to 32% in 2008.
  • ACCA has the largest percentage of female members whilst the ICAI has had the highest percentage growth in female members between 2003 and 2008.

Age of members worldwide 2008

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 2003 compared to the age distribution as at 31 December 2008.
ACCA CIMA CIPFA 6 ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
Under 25 608 58 4 0 23 84 777
25 - 34 41,591 15,156 1,207 23,989 6,526 4,529 92,998
35 - 44 49,762 27,648 3,701 35,467 5,475 3,957 126,010
45 - 54 23,064 17,087 3,667 30,432 3,176 3,517 80,943
55 - 64 10,704 9,529 3,236 23,944 1,618 2,633 51,664
65 and over 5,669 6,890 1,832 18,579 1,025 2,951 36,946
TOTAL 131,398 76,368 13,647 132,411 17,843 17,671 389,338

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 67% respectively of their membership younger than 45 years.
  • In contrast 64% of CIPFA's membership is over 45 years old.
  • The most marked changes in age profile between 2003 and 2008 relate to CIPFA where the percentage of members aged below 45 years in 2003 was 43% compared to 36% in 2008 and to ICAEW where the same percentages are 50% and 45%.

A stacked bar chart comparing the age profiles of members of ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in

  1. Each body has a single stacked bar representing 100% of its members, broken down into age categories: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over. ACCA and CIMA show larger proportions of younger members (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44), while CIPFA has a larger proportion of older members (45-54, 55-64, 65 and over). ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS show a more balanced distribution, with ICAEW having a significant proportion in the 35-44 and 45-54 age groups.

Chart 3

Age of members of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2003 – 2008

The following charts compare the age distribution of members of the Bodies for 2003 and 2008.

Age of ACCA Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of ACCA members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. ACCA shows an increase in the percentage of members in the 35-44 age group from 2003 to 2008, and a slight decrease in the 25-34 age group.

Chart 4

Age of CIMA Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of CIMA members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. CIMA shows a consistent pattern, with the 35-44 age group having the largest percentage in both years. There's a slight increase in older age groups by 2008.

Chart 5

Age of CIPFA Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of CIPFA members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. CIPFA shows a notable shift towards older age groups by 2008, with the percentage of members in the 35-44 group decreasing and the 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over groups increasing.

Chart 6

Age of ICAEW Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of ICAEW members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. ICAEW shows a slight decrease in the percentage of members in the 35-44 and 25-34 age groups by 2008, and an increase in older age groups.

Chart 7

Age of ICAI Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of ICAI members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. ICAI shows a significant increase in the percentage of members in the 25-34 age group from 2003 to 2008, indicating a younger demographic shift.

Chart 8

Age of ICAS Members 2003 and 2008

A clustered bar chart showing the age distribution of ICAS members in 2003 and

  1. For each age category (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over), there are two bars, one for 2003 and one for 2008, representing the percentage of members in that age group. ICAS shows an increase in the 25-34 age group and a slight decrease in the 35-44 age group by 2008.

Chart 9

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) 7. The requirements as outlined in Schedule 10 to 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 RSBs as at 31 December for each of the six years to 31 December 2008.

Number of firms registered with the Recognised Supervisory Bodies

| Number of Principals in Firm | ACCA | AAPA | ICAEW | ICAI | ICAS | TOTAL | |:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---| | 1 | 1,778 | 79 | 2,092 | 630 | 99 | 4,678 | | 2 - 6 | 767 | 1 | 1,924 | 337 | 139 | 3,168 | | 7 - 10 | 14 | 0 | 147 | 14 | 14 | 189 | | 11 - 50 | 10 | 0 | 101 | 8 | 7 | 126 | | 50+ | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 18 | | Total as at 31.12.08 | 2,569 | 80 | 4,279 | 991 | 260 | 8,179 | | 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 |

Table 7

  • The number of firms registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK has been gradually declining. The number of registered audit firms fell by over 25% between 2003 and 2008.
  • There was a 6.4% decrease in the number of sole practitioners between 2007 and 2008.
  • The overall decrease in the number of registered audit firms between 2003 and 2008 can largely be explained by the increase in the audit threshold, resulting in a lower number of entities requiring an audit. The proportion of annual accounts registered at Companies House that are audit exempt has increased from 56.9% in 2003/04 to 69.1% in 2007/08 8.
  • 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 and have 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.
  • It should be noted that the number of annual accounts registered at Companies House between 2003 and 2007 has fallen by 25%, however, there was a 2.5% increase of accounts registered between 2007 and 2008.

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 year ended 31 December 2008.

| | ACCA | AAPA | ICAEW | ICAI | ICAS | TOTAL | |:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---| | Number of registered audit firms monitored during the year ended 31 December 2008 | 395 | 11 | 988 | 95 | 54 | 1,543 | | % of Registered Firms | 15.4 | 13.8 | 23.1 | 9.6 | 20.8 | 18.9 |

Table 8

SECTION THREE STUDENTS OF ACCOUNTANCY BODIES

Students registered worldwide 2003 – 2008

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 2008.

ACCA 9 CIMA 9 CIPFA 9 ICAEW 10 ICAI 9 ICAS 9 TOTAL
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
2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455
% growth (03-08) 12 64.5 12.2 6.6 - 98.6 42.6 49.8
% compound annual growth (03-08) 12 10.5 2.3 1.3 - 14.7 7.4 8.4

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
2008 287,815 82,737 2,828 13,728 5,575 2,672 395,355
% Growth (06-08) 22.7 2.8 -5.6 17.5 23.2 -1.3 17.3
% compound annual growth (06-08) 10.8 1.4 -2.8 8.4 11.0 -0.6 8.3

Table 10

  • 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 8.5% in 2008 primarily due to the growth in overseas students. (Table 11)
  • Overall student numbers continue to grow (8.3% compound growth to 2008), reflecting the health of the profession worldwide and its continued attraction for students. (Table 10)
  • The ACCA and ICAI have had significantly higher growth rates year on year (22.7% and 23.2% respectively). Both CIPFA and ICAS show a downturn in the number of students for the 2006 -2008 period.

Location of Students

Table 11 shows the location 13 (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2007 and 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland 2008 86,515 56,427 2,849 14,560 5,947 3,437 169,735
2007 84,340 56,854 2,940 14,193 6,643 3,455 168,425
Rest of the World 2008 220,942 35,097 36 1,605 11 29 257,720
2007 191,717 32,418 53 1,229 10 5 225,432
TOTAL 2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455
2007 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 remained stable with an overall increase of 0.8% since last year.
  • Student numbers in the Rest of the World have increased by 14.3%.
  • The ACCA and CIMA have a significantly higher proportion of students outside the UK and Republic of Ireland (71.9% and 38.3% respectively in 2008) compared to the other Chartered Accountancy Bodies.

Table 11 shows the location14 (UK, Republic of Ireland and the rest of the world) of students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2007 and 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS TOTAL
UK & Republic of Ireland 2008 86,515 56,427 2,849 14,560 5,947 3,437 169,735
2007 84,340 56,854 2,940 14,193 6,643 3,455 168,425
Rest of the World 2008 220,942 35,097 36 1,605 11 29 257,720
2007 191,717 32,418 53 1,229 10 5 225,432
TOTAL 2008 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455
2007 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 remained stable with an overall increase of 0.8% since last year.
  • Student numbers in the Rest of the World have increased by 14.3%.
  • The ACCA and CIMA have a significantly higher proportion of students outside the UK and Republic of Ireland (71.9% and 38.3% respectively in 2008) compared to the other Chartered Accountancy Bodies.

Profile of Students of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide 2008

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 CIMA15 CIPFA ICAEW ICAI16 ICAS TOTAL
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 1 year 82,086 17,512 599 4,955 1,625 1,013 107,790
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 2 years but > 1 years 60,729 13,023 514 4,254 1,607 1,009 81,136
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 3 years but > 2 years 39,943 9,877 356 3,837 1,412 1,024 56,449
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 4 years but > 3 years 29,306 8,298 359 2,314 1,051 338 41,666
Number of students who have been a student for ≤ 5 years but > 4 years 22,826 7,409 252 369 263 62 31,181
Number of students who have been a student for over 5 years 72,567 35,405 805 436 0 20 109,233
TOTAL 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455

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 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 2008

Chart 10 compares the age distribution for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2008.

Chart 10: Comparison of Age Profile of Students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2008

This stacked bar chart shows the percentage distribution of students across different age groups (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS in 2008.

  • ACCA 2008: Approximately 28% Under 25, 47% 25-34, 16% 35-44, 9% 45 and over.
  • CIMA 2008: Approximately 20% Under 25, 47% 25-34, 25% 35-44, 8% 45 and over.
  • CIPFA 2008: Approximately 12% Under 25, 29% 25-34, 42% 35-44, 17% 45 and over.
  • ICAEW 2008: Approximately 56% Under 25, 42% 25-34, 2% 35-44, 0% 45 and over.
  • ICAI 2008: Approximately 55% Under 25, 44% 25-34, 1% 35-44, 0% 45 and over.
  • ICAS 2008: Approximately 61% Under 25, 38% 25-34, 1% 35-44, 0% 45 and over.
  • CIPFA and CIMA have more mature students than the other Bodies. CIPFA has the oldest student age profile with 46% of students aged 35 and older.
  • Charts 11 to 22 show that for most of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies the average age of their students is increasing. The exception to this is ICAS 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 2003 – 2008

The following charts compare the age distribution of students of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2003 and 2008.

Charts 11 and Chart 12: Change in age profile for ACCA students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of ACCA students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • ACCA 2003: Under 25 (47%), 25-34 (42%), 35-44 (9%), 45 and over (2%).
  • ACCA 2008: Under 25 (28%), 25-34 (51%), 35-44 (16%), 45 and over (5%).

Charts 13 and Chart 14: Change in age profile for CIMA students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of CIMA students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • CIMA 2003: Under 25 (19%), 25-34 (55%), 35-44 (19%), 45 and over (7%).
  • CIMA 2008: Under 25 (20%), 25-34 (47%), 35-44 (25%), 45 and over (8%).

Charts 15 and Chart 16: Change in age profile for CIPFA students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of CIPFA students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • CIPFA 2003: Under 25 (17%), 25-34 (45%), 35-44 (28%), 45 and over (10%).
  • CIPFA 2008: Under 25 (12%), 25-34 (29%), 35-44 (42%), 45 and over (17%).

Charts 17 and Chart 18: Change in age profile for ICAEW students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of ICAEW students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • ICAEW 2003: Under 25 (81%), 25-34 (18%), 35-44 (1%), 45 and over (0%).
  • ICAEW 2008: Under 25 (56%), 25-34 (42%), 35-44 (2%), 45 and over (0%).

Charts 19 and Chart 20: Change in age profile for ICAI students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of ICAI students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • ICAI 2003: Under 25 (67%), 25-34 (32%), 35-44 (1%), 45 and over (0%).
  • ICAI 2008: Under 25 (55%), 25-34 (44%), 35-44 (1%), 45 and over (0%).

Charts 21 and Chart 22: Change in age profile for ICAS students 2003 and 2008

These two pie charts compare the age distribution of ICAS students between 2003 and 2008, categorized into: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over.

  • ICAS 2003: Under 25 (54%), 25-34 (45%), 35-44 (1%), 45 and over (0%).
  • ICAS 2008: Under 25 (61%), 25-34 (38%), 35-44 (1%), 45 and over (0%).

Sectoral employment of students worldwide 2008

Table 13 shows the sectoral employment of worldwide students of each of the accountancy Bodies as at 31 December 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS19 TOTAL
Public Practice 73,329 0 0 12,058 5,655 3,343 94,385
Industry & Commerce 153,994 71,798 67 241 183 123 226,406
Public Sector 40,433 16,451 2,759 217 12 0 59,872
Other20 39,701 3,275 59 3,649 108 0 46,792
TOTAL 307,457 91,524 2,885 16,165 5,958 3,466 427,455

Table 13

  • Almost 75% of ICAEW students and around 95% of ICAI and ICAS students are employed in public practice. In contrast only 24% of ACCA's students are employed in public practice.
  • 96% of CIPFA's students are employed in the public sector and 78% of CIMA's students are employed in industry and commerce.
  • Whilst a high proportion (50%) of ACCA's students are employed in industry and commerce, its students are most widely dispersed across the various employment sectors of the profession.

Gender of students worldwide 2008

Table 14 shows the percentage of female students of each of the accountancy Bodies worldwide as at 31 December 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI21 ICAS21 TOTAL
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
2008 50 45 48 41 53 47 49

Table 14

  • The total proportion of female students worldwide has remained constant between 2003 and 2008.
  • The biggest changes for the Bodies are that the ICAEW percentage of female students has fallen by 4%, and the ICAS percentage has risen by 4% between 2003 and 2008.
  • 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 23 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each body who, at the time of registration as students, were (i) graduates of any discipline, (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.

Chart 23: Percentage of students holding a degree, a relevant degree or a post-graduate qualification in 2008

This bar chart shows, for each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS), the percentage of students holding:

  • A Degree (light blue bars)
  • A Relevant Degree (dark red bars)
  • A Post-graduate qualification (light yellow bars)

Observations:

  • Most bodies show high percentages of students holding a degree.
  • ACCA and ICAI have noticeable percentages of students with a post-graduate qualification.
  • The proportion of students with a "Relevant Degree" varies significantly across bodies, with ICAI showing the highest percentage.
  • 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 ICAI students hold a post-graduate qualification. The ICAEW and ICAS are currently unable to provide this information.
  • The ICAI have a larger percentage of students holding relevant degrees due to:
    • the recruitment strategy of Irish firms who tend to favour such graduates;
    • the ICAI 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
  • ICAI: Accountancy, Business & Commerce, Finance
  • ICAS: Accountancy

Pass rates 2008

Table 15 shows the percentage of overall passes at the final examination stage for the year 2008; and the percentage of those overall passes at the final examination stage which are first time passes.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI ICAS
Percentage of overall passes at the final examination 48 55 70 77 76 76
Percentage of those overall passes that were first time passes 51 54 N/A 85 82 N/A

Table 15

  • Compared to 2007 the percentage of overall passes has gone up slightly for some of the Chartered Accountancy Bodies (2007: ACCA = 47% CIMA = 54% ICAS = 74%22) and gone down for others (2007: CIPFA = 71% ICAEW = 79% ICAI = 83%22).
  • For all Bodies, where information is available, more than 50% of the overall passes were first time passes.

Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

There are six Bodies23 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 16 below shows the number of students registered with each RQB as at 31 December 2008, and the number of students following the audit route who would be eligible for the recognised professional qualification if successful.

ACCA AIA25 CIPFA25 ICAEW ICAI ICAS
Number of students in the UK and ROI24 86,515 281 2,849 14,560 5,947 3,437
Number of students following the audit route or eligible for the recognised professional qualification24 N/A26 0 0 10,279 5,093 N/A
Number of students who became members during 2008 11,605 4 321 2,827 1,237 745
The number of members who were awarded the recognised professional qualification 108 0 0 3,55127 867 26
Total number of approved training offices in the UK and ROI 5,356 133 0 2,473 771 18528
Total number of training offices in the UK and ROI approved for training audit students 4,153 0 0 1,93029 598 N/A

Table 16

The table shows that, whilst all Bodies have a large number of students, the proportion awarded the audit qualification is much smaller. 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

Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2003 – 2008

Table 17 and Chart 24 shows the income of each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in £m over the period 2003 – 2008.

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW ICAI30 ICAS TOTAL
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
2008 104.5 43.1 40.5 73.6 29.5 15.1 306.3

Table 17

Chart 24: Income of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies between 2003 and 2008

This line chart displays the income (in £m) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS from 2003 to 2008.

  • All bodies show a general upward trend in income over the period.
  • ACCA consistently has the highest income, showing significant growth.
  • ICAI shows a particularly steep increase in income towards 2008.
  • ICAS shows the lowest and most stable income over the period.
  • 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 over 18%. A considerable part of the increase between 2007 and 2008 is due to the relative strength of the Euro against Sterling. It also reflects the growth in the number of both members and students of 5.7% and 14.7% respectively. (see Tables 2 and 9)

Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2008

Chart 25: Income and costs for the Bodies for the year ended 31 December 2008

This bar chart compares the income (light blue bars) and costs (dark red bars) in £m for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, and ICAS for the year 2008.

  • For most bodies (ACCA, CIMA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS), income slightly exceeds costs, indicating a surplus.
  • CIPFA shows costs slightly exceeding income, indicating a small deficit.
  • ACCA has the highest income and costs, followed by ICAEW.
  • All the Bodies achieved a small surplus of income over expenditure in 2008 except for CIPFA where there was a small deficit.

The analysis of income for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in 2008

Chart 26: The analysis of income for the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies in 2008 This stacked bar chart shows the percentage breakdown of income sources for each of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies (ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS) in

  1. Income categories are: Fees and subscriptions, Education and exam fees, Regulation and discipline, Commercial activities, and Other.
  • ACCA: Dominantly Fees and subscriptions and Education and exam fees.
  • CIMA: Predominantly Fees and subscriptions and Education and exam fees.
  • CIPFA: A significant portion from Commercial activities, alongside Fees and subscriptions and Education and exam fees.
  • ICAEW, ICAI, ICAS: Primarily Fees and subscriptions and Education and exam fees, with some Regulation and discipline.
  • The above analysis is derived from the published accounts of the bodies. It is difficult to make close comparisons between the bodies as they categorise their income in different ways.
  • Fees and subscriptions and education and exam fees from members and students are together 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 26.
  • Income from commercial activities includes income from activities such as conferences, training courses and publications. Other income includes investment income where this is included in a body's income as set out in Table 17.

Staffing of the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies 2003 – 2008

Table 18 shows the number of staff (full time equivalent) employed by the six Chartered Accountancy Bodies worldwide over the period 2003 to 2008.

ACCA CIMA31 CIPFA ICAEW32 ICAI ICAS TOTAL
2003 571 239 335 428 104 135 1,812
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

Table 18

  • The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy Bodies in the UK and ROI has increased by a net 27.8% since 2003 despite an increase in independent regulation. Much of that increase is accounted for by ACCA with an increase of 46%. ICAEW and ICAI have also increased staff numbers over the same period by 28% and 30% respectively. In contrast, the number of staff employed by CIPFA has decreased by 8.1% since 2003.
  • Increases in staff numbers largely arise from some Bodies' strategic decisions to invest in improving services to members and students and to expand their commercial and international activities over a number of years.
ACCA CIMA31 CIPFA ICAEW32 ICAI ICAS TOTAL
571 239 335 428 104 135 1,812
640 238 321 491 104 137 1,931
694 246 313 538 104 135 2,030
727 250 319 541 114 137 2,088
763 265 314 579 129 143 2,193
824 283 308 623 135 142 2,315

Table 18

  • The total number of staff employed by the six accountancy Bodies in the UK and ROI has increased by a net 27.8%31 since 2003 despite an increase in independent regulation. Much of that increase is accounted for by ACCA with an increase of 46%. ICAEW32 and ICAI have also increased staff numbers over the same period by 28% and 30% respectively. In contrast, the number of staff employed by CIPFA has decreased by 8.1% since 2003.
  • Increases in staff numbers largely arise from some Bodies' strategic decisions to invest in improving services to members and students and to expand their commercial and international activities over a number of years.

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 2006-8. 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.

In addition, firms which have audit clients whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market will be required to produce a transparency statement. This meets the requirements of the Statutory Auditors (Transparency) Instrument which implements a requirement of the Statutory Audit Directive33. Of the 24 firms in the tables that are transparency reporting auditors, 6 firms confirmed that they have already produced a voluntary transparency statement and the majority of the remainder have stated that they will do so in 2009-10.

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 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.

Total audit fee income of all firms that submitted data to us continued to grow in 2007-08 but at a slower rate than previous years. The growth rate of audit income for the Big Four firms was considerably less than that for other firms (Table 22). It is not possible to make reliable 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 six years to 2008 based on the detailed information in the fee income tables (Tables 19-21) and similar tables in both the 5th and 6th 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 likely to be a result of the guidance and requirements introduced within the APB's Ethical Standards in 2005. In addition, the Combined Code on Corporate Governance and FRC Guidance on Audit Committees 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 six years (Chart 27); 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 more strongly between 2006 and 2007 than between 2007 and 2008. The growth rate of non Big Four firms in 2007-8 was faster than of the Big Four firms. (Table 22)
  • 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 27 and 28), the total fee income from audit per Responsible Individual (RI) has risen. (Table 23)
  • There has been a small increase in the proportion of listed companies audited by non Big Four firms in 2008-09 compared with previous years. (Table 26)
  • The figures for ‘Other clients listed on Regulated Markets' (Table 26) 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 and 2006 which covered 'Other Main Market Audit Clients' and where the securities listed on the London Stock Exchange included both equity and debt.
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals34 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals35 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit36 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work36 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-08 853 267 378 2,244 593 459 1,192
KPMG37 LLP 30-Sep-08 571 178 284 1,619 427 282 910
Deloitte38 LLP 31-May-08 67739 20339 21639 2,010 36840 24540 1,39740
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-08 513 150 227 1,282 338 208 736
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-08 315 118 135 394 115 42 237
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-08 246 99 133 325 94 72 159
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-08 98 60 60 143 62 37 44
Baker Tilly41 LLP42 31-Mar-08 269 120 115 205 61 36 108
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-08 104 55 61 104 42 16 46
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals34 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals35 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit36 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work36 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-08 68 46 46 47 26 10 11
RSM Bentley Jennison Partnership 31-Dec-08 71 31 29 74 15 10 49
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Company 30-Apr-08 41 33 33 61 14 N/A43 47
Tenon Audit Company 30-Jun-08 4 3 51 14 14 044 044
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-08 61 30 32 53 13 4 36
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-08 86 57 60 43 10 4 28
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-08 134 101 104 60 10 7 43
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-08 49 42 38 29 10 6 13
MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-08 47 34 34 27 10 NA45 NA
Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-08 3 3 57 10 10 046 046
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP 30-Jun-08 47 21 21 25 8 2 15
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals34 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals35 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit36 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work36 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-08 24 18 22 16 8 4 4
Littlejohn47 LLP48 31-May-08 30 16 16 18 7 3 8
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-08 54 31 31 35 6 4 25
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-08 35 21 21 25 5 6 14
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-08 24 10 14 16 5 4 7
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-08 19 7 7 13 5 2 6
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-08 38 15 21 20 5 NA NA
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-08 16 9 9 9 2 1 6
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-08 7 4 4 6 2 0 4
DTE Business Advisory Company 30-Apr-08 8 3 10 6 2 1 3
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-08 36 7 7 19 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-08 5 4 4 2 1 NA 1

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 Principals49 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals50 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit51 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work51 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-07 822 264 360 2,107 595 431 1,081
KPMG52 LLP 30-Sep-07 559 249 317 1,607 423 264 920
Deloitte & Touche LLP 31-May-07 65153 202 209 1,802 33954 25554 1,20854
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) LLP 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 1055 1255
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals49 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals50 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit51 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work51 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit56 Company 30-Apr-07 39 33 34 56 14 0 43
RSM Bentley Jennison57 Partnership 31-Dec-07 68 30 34 64 13 10 42
Tenon Audit Company 30-Jun-07 4 3 54 13 13 058 058
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 Smith59 LLP59 30-Apr-07 45 4160 3760 26 9 6 11
MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-07 46 30 30 24 9 NA61 NA
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-07 29 16 16 17 8 2 7
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals49 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals50 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit51 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work51 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-07 3 3 58 8 8 062 062
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 9 263 163 663
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-07 7 4 4 6 2 0 4
DTE Business Advisory Services Company 30-Apr-07 11 5 11 6 2 1 3
Jeffreys Henry LLP 30-Apr-07 8 6 6 5 2 1 2
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals49 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals50 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit51 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work51 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-07 35 7 7 18 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-07 5 4 4 2 1 NA 1

Table 20

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 Principals64 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals65 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit66 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work66 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-06 793 268 355 1,980 551 449 980
KPMG67 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 & Touche LLP 31-May-06 598 194 198 1,559 31068 29168 95868
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 Tilly69 Partnership69 31-Mar-06 264 142 142 175 54 32 89
PKF (UK)70 LLP70 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
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals64 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals65 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit66 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work66 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-06 63 40 40 39 17 1171 1171
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit72 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 Company 30-Jun-06 4 3 46 11 11 073 073
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 NA74 NA
CLB Littlejohn Frazer Partnership 31-May-0675 26 17 17 16 8 2 6
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-06 3 3 58 7 7 076 076
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals64 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals65 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit66 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work66 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Chantrey Vellacott DFK77 LLP77 30-Jun-06 50 26 26 23 7 2 14
Kingston Smith78 LLP78 30-Apr-06 42 4079 3779 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 Company 30-Apr-06 11 5 10 5 2 1 2
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-06 16 10 10 8 180 180 6
Jeffreys Henry LLP 30-Apr-06 8 6 6 5 1 1 3
Firm Name Structure Year End No of Principals64 No of Audit Principals No of Responsible Individuals65 Total Fee Income (£m) Fee Income: Audit66 (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Work66 to Audit Clients (£m) Fee Income: Non-Audit Clients (£m)
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-06 34 6 NA 16 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar81 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 21

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 Principals No of Audit Principals 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 Clients (£m)
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-06 34 6 NA 16 1 NA NA
Begbies Chettle Agar82 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 21

Analysis of Big 4 Fee Income (2003-2008)

A 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 2003 to 2008.

Key trends: * Audit Fee Income ranges from 24% to 27%. * Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients ranges from 17% to 25%. * Fee income from Non-Audit Clients ranges from 49% to 59%.

Specific data points: * 2003: Audit Fee Income 27%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 25%, Non-Audit Clients 49% * 2004: Audit Fee Income 26%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 22%, Non-Audit Clients 52% * 2005: Audit Fee Income 27%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 21%, Non-Audit Clients 53% * 2006: Audit Fee Income 26%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 19%, Non-Audit Clients 55% * 2007: Audit Fee Income 25%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 17%, Non-Audit Clients 58% * 2008: Audit Fee Income 24%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 17%, Non-Audit Clients 59%

Chart 27

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 (2003-2008) of many of the larger registered audit firms outside of the Big Four

A 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 2003 to 2008.

Key trends: * Audit Fee Income ranges from 29% to 35%. * Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients ranges from 16% to 20%. * Fee income from Non-Audit Clients ranges from 46% to 54%.

Specific data points: * 2003: Audit Fee Income 35%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 19%, Non-Audit Clients 46% * 2004: Audit Fee Income 30%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 18%, Non-Audit Clients 53% * 2005: Audit Fee Income 29%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 20%, Non-Audit Clients 51% * 2006: Audit Fee Income 30%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 18%, Non-Audit Clients 51% * 2007: Audit Fee Income 31%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 16%, Non-Audit Clients 53% * 2008: Audit Fee Income 31%, Non-Audit work to Audit Clients 16%, Non-Audit Clients 54%

Chart 28

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'.

Growth of Fee Income

Table 22 shows the growth rate of fee income between 2004 and 2008 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.

2007-8 2006-7 2005-6 2004-5
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients83 6.96 10.18 13.78 12.51
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the Big Four Firms 6.13 10.11 14.24 13.55
Percentage growth rate of total fee income for the Non Big Four Firms 7.57 10.51 11.73 8.31
Percentage growth rate of audit income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients83 5.20 8.19 10.81 12.52
Percentage growth rate of audit income for the Big Four Firms 2.20 6.75 9.63 16.00
Percentage growth rate of audit income for the Non Big Four Firms 8.14 14.03 15.57 5.68
Percentage growth rate of non-audit income for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients83 8.63 10.90 15.15 10.50
Percentage growth rate of non-audit income for the Big Four Firms 7.44 11.28 15.93 12.68
Percentage growth rate of non-audit income for the Non Big Four Firms 7.33 8.91 10.49 8.95

Table 22

  • The rate of growth in total fee income has been declining since 2005-06. This is mirrored in both audit and non-audit fee income and within the Big Four firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.
  • The rate of growth in audit fee income illustrated in 2004-5 and 2005-6 is likely to be in part in relation to IFRS transitional work. This was one-off work which would have inflated audit fee income in the period. IFRS work for this period related to listed groups which would have predominantly been audited by the Big Four firms, explaining the slowing of the rate of growth in audit fee income within this category.
  • The rate of growth in non-audit fee income is likely to have fallen in response to the effects of the early stages of the economic downturn.

Audit Fee Income per Responsible Individual

Table 2384 illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI)85 for 2004 to 2008 (inclusive). This information is split further between the Big Four audit firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four.

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the largest registered audit firms with UK public interest entities as clients 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.89 0.88
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the Big Four Firms 1.56 1.52 1.47 1.35 1.13
Audit fee income (£m) per RI for the Non Big Four Firms 0.48 0.43 0.40 0.37 0.38

Table 23

  • Audit fee income generated per RI has grown between 2004 and 2008 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 rate of increase in audit fee income compared to the rate of increase in the number of RIs.

Responsible Individual Status

Table 2486 shows the percentage of RIs within the Big Four firms and the largest firms outside of the Big Four who are audit principals87 and who are employed for 2004 to 2008 (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
2004 78.42% 21.58%
2005 80.50% 19.50%
2006 79.65% 20.35%
2007 78.34% 21.66%
2008 72.22% 27.78%

Table 24

  • The percentage of Responsible Individuals that are employees has increased sharply in 2008 for the Big Four firms.
  • The number of employee Responsible Individuals continues to be 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 2008

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

Firm Name Structure Year End No of FTSE 100 Audit Clients No of FTSE 250 Audit Clients Total No of Other Clients listed on Regulated Markets No of AIM Audit Clients
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30-Jun-08 39 73 21989 151
KPMG90 LLP 30-Sep-08 25 42 193 95
Deloitte91,92 LLP 31-May-08 21 61 97 87
Ernst & Young LLP 30-Jun-08 16 43 264 66
Grant Thornton LLP 30-Jun-08 0 6 8193 19893
BDO Stoy Hayward LLP 30-Jun-08 0 6 30 149
PKF (UK) LLP 31-Mar-08 0 0 45 49
Baker Tilly LLP 31-Mar-08 0 0 22 93
Kingston Smith LLP 30-Apr-08 0 0 12 17
Littlejohn94 LLP95 31-May-08 0 0 6 19
UHY Hacker Young Group of Partnerships 30-Apr-08 0 0 5 23
Scott Moncrieff Partnership 30-Apr-08 0 0 5 3
Nexia Smith & Williamson Audit Company 30-Apr-08 0 0 4 40
James Cowper Partnership 30-Apr-08 0 0 4 0
Chiene & Tait Scottish Partnership 30-Sep-08 0 0 4 0
Moore Stephens LLP 30-Apr-08 0 0 3 13
Chantrey Vellacott DFK LLP96 30-Jun-08 0 0 3 15
Mazars LLP 31-Aug-08 0 0 3 37
Saffery Champness Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 2 8
Haysmacintyre Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 2 6
Begbies Chettle Agar Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 2 NA97
Horwath Clark Whitehill LLP 31-Mar-08 0 0 1 16
Tenon Audit Limited Company 30-Jun-08 0 0 1 11
Menzies Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 1 3
RSM Bentley Jennison98 Partnership 31-Dec-08 0 0 0 12
HLB Vantis Audit plc Plc 31-May-08 0 0 0 8
HW Group Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 0 5
MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31-Mar-08 0 0 0 4
Armstrong Watson Partnership 31-Mar-08 0 0 0 1
Cooper Parry LLP 30-Apr-08 0 0 0 0
DTE Business Advisory Limited Company 30-Apr-08 0 0 0 0
Johnston Carmichael Partnership 31-May-08 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 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 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 (%)
28/02/09 28/02/08 28/02/07
FTSE 10099 99.0 100.0 100.0
FTSE 25099 94.4 96.0 96.8
Other UK Main Market 70.8 72.3 75.4
All Main Market 78.7 79.9 82.3

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 2008)

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 1,511,030 2,242
5 to 9 209,541 1,301
10 to 30 25,925 685
31 to 100 8,203 530
101 to 500 2,449 410
501 to 1000 1,000 294
1001 to 2000 480 236
2001 to 3000 213 148
3001 to 4279 54 21

Table 27

Table 27 illustrates that approximately 58% of the total fee income of audit firms registered with the ICAEW is attributable to the Big Four. The information in Table 27 is not directly comparable with the figures within Tables 19-21 which consolidate the income of all the entities through which a firm operates i.e. both audit registered entities and other entities.

The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2009 (UP/FRC-B19005) ISBN: 978-1-84798-212-4 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. 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. 2 Association of International Accountants (AIA) ↩

  3. 3 Association of Authorised Public Accountants (AAPA) ↩

  4. The ICAEW includes members working within the charity sector in ‘Other'. ↩

  5. ‘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. ↩

  6. The age is not known for 50 CIPFA members. ↩

  7. 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) ↩

  8. The data above was taken from the Companies House publication ‘Companies Register Activities 2007-08' which can be found on their website. ↩

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

  10. The ICAEW figures from 2005 include individuals who are classed as independent students (i.e. do not have a training contract and therefore cannot sit a final case study examination). The ICAEW figures from 2006 include individuals who have passed their final case study examination and completed their training contracts. These individuals are entitled to membership but have not yet applied. ↩

  11. The annual growth rates for the ICAEW have not been calculated as their measurement criteria changed for 2005 and the figures are therefore not comparable, see footnote 2 and 3 above. ↩

  12. The annual growth rates for the ICAEW have not been calculated as their measurement criteria changed for 2005 and the figures are therefore not comparable, see footnote 2 and 3 above. ↩↩

  13. 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. ↩

  14. 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. ↩

  15. 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 a passed finalist. ↩

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

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

  18. CIPFA and ICAS have 3.9% and 3.1% respectively of unknown student ages. ↩

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

  20. ‘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. ↩

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

  22. Source: Key Facts and Trends 6th edition ↩↩

  23. 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) ↩

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

  25. 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. ↩↩

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

  27. ICAEW figure includes 271 students admitted to membership who were granted the audit qualification through application. A further 3,280 members were granted the audit qualification on the basis of an automatic award to all those members who had met eligibility requirements since 2006. ↩

  28. ICAS figure includes a number of group authorisations. ICAS treats group authorisations as one office. The 185 approved training offices noted above include 32 group authorisations covering 153 individual offices. ↩

  29. This figure represents the number of authorised training offices able to provide sufficient audit experience for their students to be awarded the audit qualification on completion of training. ↩

  30. The ICAI income has been converted from Euros at the year end 31 December 2008 rate of £1.00 = €1.05. ↩

  31. CIMA also had 119 staff employed outside of the UK and ROI in 2008 (2007 – 100 staff), which is not included in this figure. ↩↩↩

  32. The figures for ICAEW for 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. ↩↩↩

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

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

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

  36. 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' ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  37. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

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

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

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

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

  42. Changed from Partnership to LLP in April 2007 ↩

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  51. 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' ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  52. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  65. RIs are those individuals who are authorised to sign audit reports ↩↩↩↩

  66. 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' ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  67. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

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

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

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

  71. These figures are estimated. ↩↩

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  79. In their 2008 submission Kingston Smith have amended these figures for the year ended 2006. ↩↩

  80. Figures estimated ↩↩

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

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

  83. 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. ↩↩↩

  84. 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. ↩

  85. 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. ↩

  86. 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. ↩

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

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

  89. This figure is the number of parent groups that are audited by PwC. It does not include any subsidiaries. ↩

  90. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc ↩

  91. Figures are as at 31 October 2008 ↩

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

  93. Grant Thornton's figures are as at 31 December 2008 ↩↩

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

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

  96. Changed from a Partnership to an LLP in 2008 ↩

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

  98. In the sixth edition of Key Facts & Trends this information was provided as at 31 May 2007. ↩

  99. Includes International Main Market Companies. ↩↩

File

Name Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession 2009
Publication date 27 September 2023
Type Report
Format PDF, 473.2 KB
Download original
Back to top