In 2026, while other Big 4 firms made headlines for layoffs, Deloitte took a quieter—but arguably more important—approach.

Instead of cutting large numbers of employees, Deloitte is changing how its workforce is structured, compensated, and managed.

At first glance, it looks like a routine internal update.

It’s not.

This is one of the biggest shifts in how a Big 4 firm operates in years.

---

What Actually Changed at Deloitte

Deloitte recently announced a major overhaul of its U.S. workforce model, affecting tens of thousands of employees.

Here are the key changes:

1. Cuts to benefits for certain employees

For workers placed into its new “Center” talent group (internal support roles like HR, IT, and finance), Deloitte is reducing benefits, including:

• Parental leave reduced (from ~16 weeks to ~8 weeks)
• Paid time off reduced by several days
• Elimination of certain fertility and adoption benefits
• Changes to retirement/pension-related benefits

These changes are set to take effect starting in 2027.

Important: Not all employees are affected—this is targeted at specific roles.

---

2. A completely new workforce structure

Deloitte is reorganizing employees into four main groups:

• Core → traditional client-facing professionals
• Project → flexible, project-based roles
• Domain → specialized experts
• Center → internal support functions

This replaces the more traditional Big 4 model where most employees followed a similar career track.

Translation:
Deloitte is moving toward a tiered workforce based on role value and flexibility.

---

3. New titles and career paths

As part of the restructuring:

• Many employees are receiving new titles
• A new leadership structure is being introduced
• Career progression is becoming less standardized

The classic “analyst → senior → manager → partner” path is becoming less universal.

---

4. A shift in how employees are treated

Historically, Big 4 firms offered relatively consistent benefits and treatment across employees.

Deloitte is now moving toward:

• Different benefits depending on role
• Different expectations depending on value to the firm
• A more segmented employee experience

In short:
Not all Deloitte employees are being treated the same anymore.

---

Why Deloitte Is Doing This

1. AI and automation are changing the economics

Deloitte is investing heavily in AI and automation.

That means:

• Some roles (especially internal support and repetitive work) require fewer people
• Other roles (technical, specialized, client-facing) are becoming more valuable

The new structure reflects this shift:
high-skill roles are prioritized, lower-skill roles are optimized for cost.

---

2. Cost pressure—even without layoffs

Even though Deloitte continues to generate strong revenue, it’s facing:

• High investment costs (especially in AI)
• Slower growth in some consulting areas
• Lower employee turnover (fewer people quitting)

Instead of layoffs, Deloitte is choosing to:

reduce long-term costs by cutting benefits and restructuring roles

---

3. The labor market has shifted

During the 2021–2022 hiring boom:

• Firms increased salaries and benefits
• Competition for talent was intense

In 2026:

• Hiring is slower
• Employees have less leverage

Deloitte is adjusting benefits back toward a more cost-controlled model.

---

Why This Matters More Than It Looks

Deloitte’s changes may not be as visible as layoffs—but they could have a bigger long-term impact.

1. The Big 4 “one-size-fits-all” model is ending

Not everyone at the firm is on the same path anymore.

Different roles now come with:

• different pay structures
• different benefits
• different career trajectories

---

2. Job security is becoming more role-dependent

Instead of broad stability, job security now depends on:

• how close your role is to revenue
• how specialized your skillset is
• how replaceable your work is

---

3. The partnership model is evolving

While Deloitte hasn’t made major partner cuts like KPMG, these changes suggest:

• a more performance-driven system
• less guaranteed long-term progression
• more emphasis on profitability

---

Deloitte vs KPMG: Two Different Approaches

Deloitte and KPMG are solving similar problems—but in very different ways.

• KPMG → direct layoffs, including partners
• Deloitte → indirect changes through benefits and structure

In simple terms:

• KPMG is cutting people
• Deloitte is changing the system those people operate in

Both approaches point to the same underlying reality:

the traditional Big 4 model is under pressure

---

What This Means for Accountants and Students

If you’re considering a Big 4 career, this shift matters.

Safer roles:

• Client-facing advisory
• Tech-focused roles (AI, data, cybersecurity)
• Specialized expertise areas

Higher-risk roles:

• Internal support functions
• Repetitive or process-heavy work
• Generalist positions without technical differentiation

The takeaway:
Your skillset matters more than your firm.

---

Bottom Line

Deloitte didn’t announce mass layoffs.

But what it did instead may be more important.

By restructuring its workforce and reducing benefits for certain roles, Deloitte is:

• lowering long-term costs
• increasing flexibility
• redefining how careers at the firm work

And the biggest takeaway?

The Big 4 are no longer built on uniform career paths and guaranteed progression.

They’re becoming more like modern corporations—where value, not tenure, determines your future.

In April 2026, KPMG made one of the most surprising moves in recent Big 4 history:
it cut both rank-and-file employees and its own partners.

That second part is what makes this story different.

This isn’t just another round of consulting layoffs—it’s a signal that something deeper is changing inside the accounting industry.

---

What Actually Happened

KPMG announced multiple workforce reductions across its U.S. business:

• ~4% of its U.S. advisory workforce (~400 employees) laid off
• ~10% of U.S. audit partners (~100 partners) pushed out or retired

At the same time, the firm is also:

• Exiting parts of its federal audit business
• Redeploying hundreds of employees internally

Taken together, this isn’t one decision—it’s a full restructuring.

---

Why This Is a Big Deal

1. Big 4 firms almost never cut partners

Partner used to mean:

• job security
• long-term payout
• “you made it”

But KPMG cutting ~10% of its audit partners changes that narrative.

This move was driven by:

• a failed push to get partners to retire voluntarily
• a need to “right-size” leadership relative to demand

Translation:
There were too many partners for the amount of work available.

---

2. Consulting demand is weaker than expected

The advisory layoffs were more traditional:

• slowing demand in financial services and regulatory consulting
• lower turnover (people aren’t quitting like they did in 2021–2022)

That combination creates a problem:

too many employees + not enough work = layoffs

---

3. The industry is correcting pandemic overhiring

During the boom years:

• firms hired aggressively
• consulting demand surged
• attrition was high

Now:

• hiring slowed
• employees are staying longer
• demand is uneven

So firms like KPMG are resetting headcount to reality.

---

4. AI is quietly reshaping the business model

While KPMG didn’t explicitly say “AI caused layoffs,” the direction is clear:

• growth areas: AI, cybersecurity, tech consulting
• declining areas: manual-heavy advisory work

The implication:

• fewer people needed for repetitive work
• more value placed on tech-enabled services

---

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for the Big 4

KPMG isn’t alone—it’s just the most aggressive right now.

This situation highlights four major trends:

1. Partner model is under pressure

The idea of guaranteed long-term partnership is weakening.

2. Audit is becoming more efficient (and leaner)

Fewer people are needed to do the same work.

3. Consulting is no longer a guaranteed growth engine

Demand is more volatile than it looked a few years ago.

4. Big 4 firms are becoming more corporate

Less “lifetime career,” more performance-based structure.

---

What This Means for Accountants and Students

If you’re considering the Big 4:

• Job security is still strong—but less bulletproof than before
• The biggest risk is in traditional audit and low-skill advisory roles
• The biggest opportunity is in:
  • AI
  • data analytics
  • cybersecurity

The safest strategy:
Position yourself closer to technology + high-value advisory, not repetitive work.

---

Bottom Line

KPMG’s layoffs aren’t just a cost-cutting move.

They’re a signal that the Big 4 model is evolving:

• fewer people
• more technology
• tighter margins
• less guaranteed career progression

And the most important takeaway?

Even partners are no longer untouchable.

Layoffs at EY have intensified throughout 2025, reaching deep into the U.S. firm’s core service lines: Audit, Tax, and Consulting. While layoffs have been ongoing globally, the U.S. has seen a distinct pattern of staff being quietly let go—sometimes regardless of performance.

This post breaks down which service lines are being hit, what levels are affected, and how year-end performance ratings like “NTP” (Needs to Progress) are being used to carry out these cuts.

---

Key Takeaways

• Audit, Tax, and Consulting are all being impacted—Audit and Consulting the most.
• Cuts affect Staff 1 through Manager levels, with some roles let go shortly after year-end reviews.
• Many affected employees had positive performance reviews or met expectations.
• Severance is minimal—often just 4 weeks, with little notice.

---

EY Layoffs by U.S. Service Line

1. Audit (Assurance)

Despite its reputation as the “safe” service line, Audit is no longer immune to layoffs.

Who’s Affected:

• Staff 2 to Managers across various U.S. regions
• Some Seniors and Managers reportedly laid off weeks after receiving “Meets Expectations” ratings in year-end reviews
• EY is also cutting Client Technology Assurance (CT Assurance) roles, particularly in offshore delivery centers

Common Scenario:

“I was a Senior who had a good year-end review. Still got the ‘status discussion’ and was let go with 4 weeks severance.”

Reasoning:

• Consolidation of audit support in Global Delivery Centers (GDS)
• Loss of 80+ public company clients in 2023–24
• Pressure to flatten teams and reduce U.S. payroll costs

---

2. Tax

Tax has seen selective layoffs, primarily driven by restructuring and performance filtering.

Who’s Affected:

• Mostly Staff 1–2 and a few Seniors with “Needs to Progress” (NTP) ratings
• Layoffs are more performance-based than structural in Tax, according to insiders

Common Scenario:

“I got an NTP for not meeting billable hour targets. Two weeks later I was let go.”

Notes:

• NTP seems to be used more consistently in Tax as a legitimate performance label
• Some remaining roles are being moved to EY GDS centers abroad

---

3. Consulting (Advisory)

Consulting has faced the most aggressive cuts in the U.S. and globally due to weak client demand.

Who’s Affected:

• Staff 1–3, Senior Associates, and Managers in Technology Risk, Strategy & Transactions, and other advisory groups
• Layoffs impacted even those with “Meets” or “Exceeds Expectations” at year-end

Common Scenario:

“Was rated ‘Meets Expectations’ in my performance review. Three weeks later, was given a meeting with HR and told my role was being eliminated.”

Reasoning:

• Slump in client projects post-2024
• Overcapacity after hiring spikes during COVID-era growth
• Move to offshore some delivery roles

---

The Role of Year-End Evaluations

What is “NTP”?

• NTP = Needs to Progress
• A formal rating assigned during performance evaluations indicating that the employee is not meeting expectations
• Often used as a soft layoff trigger, even when no Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is offered

Patterns Observed:

Rating Given	Outcome
Exceeds Expectations	Safe for now, though some still cut due to role elimination
Meets Expectations	Many still laid off due to “business decisions” or “restructuring”
Needs to Progress (NTP)	Frequently followed by a layoff notice within 2–4 weeks
No Rating / Mid-Year	Often let go before the cycle or during mid-year realignments

“I had a good year-end review. Then I was told I was part of a business restructuring. No one mentioned performance again.”

---

Severance & Transition Details

• Most U.S.-based professionals are receiving:
  • 4 weeks severance
  • Healthcare coverage through the end of the month
  • Access to job placement tools (mildly helpful at best)
• No retention bonuses or transition roles were widely reported

---

What To Do If You’re at Risk

1. Clarify your rating: Ask your counselor/manager to provide written feedback if labeled NTP.
2. Document everything: Keep records of performance reviews, communications, and work metrics.
3. Start job searching immediately: Especially if you’re Staff 2+, as similar firms are now flooded with candidates.
4. Leverage your EY experience: The Big 4 brand still carries weight in industry roles—FP&A, internal audit, tech risk, etc.

---

Final Thoughts

EY’s 2025 U.S. layoffs are broader and more unpredictable than in previous years. While the firm is citing performance in some cases, the reality is that many high-performing employees have been let go due to structural realignments, client attrition, and global cost-cutting.

Whether you’re in Audit, Tax, or Consulting—if you’re labeled NTP or if your team seems overstaffed—start preparing now.

The new Big 4 reality? No role is fully safe, and performance alone might not protect you.

Each summer, professionals at EY await updates on compensation—raises, promotions, and bonuses that reflect their hard work and market trends. FY26 (summer 2025) was no exception, and Reddit’s r/Big4 and r/Accounting communities once again served as a valuable source for firsthand data.

This post breaks down the trends, numbers, and reactions from employees across the U.S. and Canada during EY’s FY26 compensation cycle.

---

Timing of Raises & Promotions

EY’s annual compensation updates typically take effect in early August, with promotions officially effective October 1. However, salary adjustments are reflected in August or September paychecks, depending on region and payroll cycle.

“Annual pay raises come in every August, unless you get some sort of early promo… which would increase your pay in Jan.”
— Reddit user, r/Big4

---

FY26 Raise & Bonus Patterns

Reddit threads provided a wealth of data showing that raises varied widely based on:

• Location (LCOL, MCOL, HCOL)
• Performance rating (Progressing, Differentiating, Strategic Impact)
• Service line (Audit, Tax, Consulting, Tech Risk)
• Promotion eligibility

Real Examples

Role/Market	Raise %	Bonus	Notes
CBS (VHCOL) Senior Assoc → Supv. Assoc	~15%	3.6%	$135K → $158K
Tax, Staff 2 → Senior 1 (Midwest HCOL)	9%	~$5K + 3%	Broke $100K barrier
Tech Risk, SDC (LCOL)	11.7%	3.25%	Rating: Differentiating
Audit, Staff 1 → Staff 2 (VLCOL)	8%	3.25%	~$75K → ~$81K
Digital Consulting, HCOL	4%	$0	Rating: Progressing
Audit FSO S3 → M1 (MCOL)	24.5%	10.5%	Rating: Strategic Impact

---

Performance Ratings Matter—A Lot

FY26 saw stricter enforcement of bonus eligibility:

“If your ranking is ‘Progressing’ or ‘Need to Progress’ you won’t get a bonus.”
— r/Big4 thread, FY26 EY compensation

This surprised many, as previous years offered at least modest bonuses for mid-performing employees.

Ratings directly affected:

• Merit/market raises
• Promotion eligibility
• PBB (performance-based bonus) percentages

---

Redditor Sentiment

EY’s raises drew mixed reviews this year. Some users were satisfied with double-digit gains tied to promotions. Others—particularly in consulting or with “Progressing” ratings—expressed frustration:

“EY had that 10% salary increase across the board… they said it’s going to be every year for the next 3 years… I’m skeptical.”
— r/Big4, on the $1B EY talent initiative

Many pointed out that while entry-level and new hire pay was clearly rising, raises for existing employees were inconsistent across teams and service lines.

---

Quick Takeaways

Category	Summary
Raise Timing	Early August effective date; seen in Aug/Sept paychecks
Raise Size	Ranged from 2–5% (merit only) to 25%+ (promo + strong rating)
Bonuses	Reserved for “Differentiating” or higher; ~$2K–$15K common
Disappointment Areas	Consulting, HCOL regions with flat raises, Progressing-rated staff
Bright Spots	Promotions in Audit/FSO, Strategic Impact ratings, lower COL markets

---

Final Thoughts

EY’s FY26 compensation cycle reflects a more performance-driven, selective bonus culture, especially as economic pressures tighten budgets. High performers were rewarded—often significantly—while average-rated employees in some practices saw minimal change.

For those aiming to maximize compensation in FY27, it’s clear that promotion + high performance ratings are key—and that bonus eligibility now has stricter gates than in prior years.

---

PwC Begins Major Workforce Cuts

PwC is undergoing one of its largest workforce realignments in recent years. In its latest fiscal year, the firm cut approximately 5,600 jobs globally, a significant reversal from earlier hiring goals. These reductions span support roles, client-service teams, and specific international regions that have seen major market disruptions.

While the Big Four are no strangers to periodic restructuring, this round is notable for both its scale and timing — following several years of aggressive hiring and expansion.

---

U.S. Impact: Cuts Across Support and Client-Facing Roles

Latest Cuts: Business-Services Functions

In November 2025, PwC eliminated around 150 roles across U.S. business-services functions, including:

• HR

• Marketing

• Internal IT

• Learning & development

• Operations and administrative support

These cuts represent roughly 1.5% of the U.S. business-services workforce. They reflect PwC’s push toward leaner internal operations, cost control, and greater use of automation in administrative tasks.

Earlier 2025 Cuts in Tax & Assurance

Earlier this year, PwC also cut approximately 1,500 U.S. jobs (about 2% of its tax and assurance practice).
The firm cited:

• Historically low attrition

• Overstaffing relative to client demand

• A need to rebalance talent pipelines

This is especially notable because PwC — like other Big Four firms — had significantly ramped up hiring in 2021–2022 during the post-pandemic advisory boom.

In May 2025, PwC announced the layoff of approximately 1,500 employees in the United States, representing about 2% of its 75,000-person U.S. workforce. This move primarily affected the firm’s audit and tax divisions and was attributed to historically low attrition rates, leading to staffing surpluses.

There is no secret that less people have been leaving the big 4 in recent years. This is primarily due to better policies around working from home. It’s a lot easier to deal with big 4 headaches when you don’t have to go into the office everyday. Additionally, a lot of clients are working from home or are remote, so it’s not necessary to go into their offices. With little to no commuting, dealing with the stresses of the big 4 is a lot easier and fewer people are leaving.

It must also be remembered that the big 4 don’t necessarily do things that make sense. They laid off some new hires but are still hiring more people. I’m sure the people that were laid off had low utilization. The key is to stay utilized. This is always the case. If you don’t have good utilization, then the firms will view as a problem.

---

International Layoffs: Middle East Hit Hard

Globally, the largest international impact occurred in PwC’s Middle East operations, where the firm reportedly cut ~1,500 employees and 60 partners. The catalyst was a high-profile dispute with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund, which temporarily limited advisory contract opportunities in the region.

PwC had previously identified the Middle East as a major growth engine — making these cuts especially significant.

---

Why PwC Is Cutting Jobs Now

1. Slowing Revenue Growth

PwC reported 2.9% global revenue growth in FY2025 — down from 3.7% in 2024 and nearly 10% during the pandemic-recovery boom. Advisory demand, in particular, has cooled as clients refocus on cost control.

Slower growth = less room for excess capacity.

2. Overhiring During the Boom Years

From 2021–2023, PwC aggressively expanded headcount. Now, with attrition falling sharply, the firm has more staff than it needs — particularly at junior levels and in internal support.

3. Technology & Automation

Functions like HR, marketing, administrative support, and even parts of audit are becoming more automated. Internal teams are shrinking while investments shift toward:

• AI-enabled audit tools

• Tax automation platforms

• Digital assurance services

• Consulting in cloud, cybersecurity, and transformation

4. Market-Specific Shocks

In the Middle East, geopolitical and regulatory issues directly impacted revenue, forcing rapid cuts.

---

What This Means for Students and Job Seekers

Hiring Will Be More Selective

PwC (and other Big Four firms) are tightening both campus recruiting and experienced-hire pipelines. Fewer full-time offers and more targeted hiring are expected through 2026.

Support Roles Are Most Vulnerable

Marketing, HR, operations, and internal IT have been first in line for reductions.

For students:
→ Core service lines (audit, tax, advisory) remain safer — but growth will not match pre-2023 levels.

Expect More Skills-Based Hiring

Technical skills now matter more than ever:

• Data analytics

• Digital audit tools

• Python/SQL

• Tax automation platforms

• Cybersecurity and cloud skills

Students with tech fluency will have an advantage.

---

What This Means for Current PwC Employees

• Expect continued restructuring, especially in internal functions.

• Promotions may slow in certain service lines due to tighter leverage models.

• Client demand is still stable, so layoffs are likely to stay targeted rather than firm-wide.

• Employees in transformation-focused areas (cloud, data, AI, cybersecurity) are safest — these teams are still hiring.

---

Impact on the Big Four Landscape

PwC is not alone. All the Big Four firms have:

• Slowed revenue growth

• Reduced hiring targets

• Shifted investment toward AI and automation

• Tightened their staffing leverage model

However, PwC’s cuts are among the most public and substantial so far — and may signal what’s ahead for Deloitte, KPMG, and EY.

---

Is This the Beginning of a Bigger Trend?

Probably. The Big Four rode a once-in-a-generation boom between 2020–2022. That expansion created a hiring bubble that is now normalizing.

Expect:

• More selective recruiting

• Smaller starting classes

• More internal reshuffling

• Heavier use of outsourcing and automation

But don’t expect a collapse — the Big Four business model remains robust, and demand for audit and tax is structurally stable.

---

Takeaways

• PwC has laid off ~5,600 employees globally this year.

• U.S. business-services cuts: ~150 roles.

• U.S. tax & assurance cuts: ~1,500 roles.

• Middle East layoffs: ~1,500 employees + 60 partners.

• The primary drivers: slower growth, overhiring, lower attrition, and market-specific challenges.

• Students and job seekers should expect more competitive recruiting and greater emphasis on tech skills.

Deloitte Layoffs 2025: Navigating Federal Consulting Cuts and Industry Shifts

In April 2025, Deloitte, one of the “Big Four” accounting and consulting firms, announced a round of layoffs within its U.S. operations. These cuts primarily target the Government and Public Services (GPS) division, a segment heavily reliant on federal contracts. While the firm has not disclosed the exact number of impacted employees, reports suggest the layoffs are directly tied to substantial reductions in government consulting work.

The Cause: Federal Contract Reductions

The layoffs stem from a broader initiative led by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Since January 2025, the federal government has either canceled or modified at least 127 consulting contracts, reducing Deloitte’s potential revenue by approximately $371.8 million. This move is part of DOGE’s push to cut back on spending for external consulting services, directly impacting major players like Deloitte.

The General Services Administration (GSA) has played a key role in reassessing and scaling back consulting contracts across agencies. Deloitte, which holds a significant portfolio of federal consulting engagements, has felt these cuts acutely within its GPS division.

Deloitte’s Response

Deloitte framed the layoffs as “modest personnel actions,” attributing them to moderating growth in some areas, evolving client needs, and a lower-than-expected rate of voluntary employee attrition. However, for many within the GPS division, particularly those not currently assigned to active projects, the layoffs are a stark reminder of the volatility in federal consulting.

In response, Deloitte is reportedly working to reassign affected staff to other areas within the firm. Yet, given the scale of contract reductions, these efforts are proving challenging.

Broader Industry Implications

Deloitte’s layoffs signal broader uncertainties within the federal consulting space. The DOGE-driven spending cuts have affected multiple firms, with ripple effects throughout the consulting sector. For firms like Deloitte that have heavily invested in government services, adapting to these changes requires strategic shifts, including diversifying client bases and re-evaluating service offerings.

As the federal government continues to scrutinize consulting expenditures, firms operating in this space may face increased pressure to demonstrate value, efficiency, and measurable outcomes. For Deloitte, navigating these shifts will be crucial in maintaining its leadership position within the industry.

Conclusion

The recent layoffs at Deloitte reflect both internal adjustments and external pressures stemming from significant federal policy changes. As the consulting landscape continues to evolve, firms like Deloitte will need to adapt swiftly to changing client demands and market realities. For employees within federal consulting, the current environment underscores the importance of flexibility and the potential need to explore opportunities in other sectors.

Stay tuned for further updates as this situation develops and reshapes the consulting industry in 2025.

In the high-stakes world of tech, reliable financial reporting is essential — especially when you’re a key player in the AI hardware boom. That’s why all eyes were on Supermicro, the high-performance server manufacturer and key Nvidia partner, after it filed several overdue financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But the real drama lies in why those filings were late — and the Big Four firm EY is at the center of the storm.

What Went Down?

Supermicro, a rising star in AI server technology, fell behind on submitting its 2024 annual financial statements and the first two quarters of its fiscal 2025 reports. These delays raised eyebrows in both the tech and investment worlds, where timely reporting is crucial for market confidence.

When the filings finally landed, Supermicro pointed the finger at EY (Ernst & Young) — its former auditor. According to Supermicro, EY’s actions and eventual resignation as the company’s auditor in October 2024 caused the cascading delays.

Why Did EY Walk Away?

EY’s concerns reportedly centered around governance, transparency, and the conduct of Supermicro’s senior management. While specific details were not disclosed in the public filings, it’s clear that EY’s internal risk assessments triggered red flags that ultimately led the firm to sever its auditing relationship with Supermicro.

This isn’t an everyday occurrence. For a Big Four firm to resign mid-engagement, especially from a high-profile client like Supermicro, signals serious concerns about corporate controls or management integrity. Such moves typically only happen when auditors believe they cannot rely on management representations — a fundamental pillar of the audit process.

Supermicro Fires Back

In Supermicro’s view, the financial reporting process was sound, and EY’s concerns were overblown. After parting ways with EY, Supermicro brought in BDO — a mid-tier audit firm — to take over.

BDO completed the audits and gave Supermicro’s financial statements a clean bill of health. With the filings now up to date, Supermicro’s stock surged more than 12%, a clear signal that investors were relieved to have the uncertainty resolved — at least for now.

What This Means for the Big Four and Their Clients

This saga highlights several key issues that extend far beyond Supermicro:

• Audit Firm Scrutiny: The Big Four — including EY — have come under increasing regulatory and reputational pressure globally to spot governance and transparency issues early. This pressure has made them more cautious about sticking with clients they view as high-risk.

• Tech Companies Under the Microscope: With the rapid rise of AI infrastructure companies, tech firms face heightened scrutiny from auditors and regulators alike. Investors and auditors are both asking harder questions about governance and internal controls.

• Mid-Tier Firms Gaining Ground: Supermicro’s ability to secure a clean audit opinion from BDO demonstrates that companies do have viable alternatives outside the Big Four, especially when they face auditor resignations or disputes.

Conclusion

While Supermicro may have smoothed things over with investors for now, the EY resignation raises lingering questions about internal governance and financial oversight. In an era where financial transparency is more critical than ever — particularly for companies tied to high-growth sectors like AI — this case serves as a cautionary tale for both corporate leaders and audit firms.

For the Big Four, Supermicro’s audit dispute underscores the delicate balancing act auditors face: protecting their reputations, meeting regulatory expectations, and managing client relationships. As AI and tech giants continue to dominate the economy, this won’t be the last high-profile audit breakup we see.

The Big Four accounting firms — Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC — have once again made headlines over the past week. From launching a law firm in the U.S. to internal restructurings and debates over regulatory reforms, here’s a quick recap of the biggest developments shaping the future of the world’s top professional services firms.

---

KPMG Breaks New Ground with U.S. Law Firm Approval

In a historic move, KPMG has secured approval to launch KPMG Law US, becoming the first Big Four firm authorized to operate a law firm in the United States. This is made possible through Arizona’s groundbreaking regulatory reform, which allows non-lawyers to own law firms with court oversight.

KPMG Law US will provide legal operations consulting, managed services, and technology-driven legal solutions — complementing KPMG’s established tax and advisory services. Importantly, it will not provide legal services to clients audited by KPMG LLP to maintain independence. This move signals KPMG’s ambition to further integrate legal and consulting offerings under one roof, a potential game-changer for the U.S. legal and accounting landscapes.

---

EY Flags Serious Financial Weaknesses in UK Regeneration Project

EY auditors raised red flags after uncovering severe financial and governance weaknesses at the South Tees Development Corporation (STDC), which is responsible for the Teesworks regeneration project in the UK.

EY declined to sign off on the 2023-24 accounts due to the late publication of financial reports, leaving insufficient time for thorough audits. EY’s investigation follows a previous governmental review that identified governance failings and weak value-for-money practices at STDC. The firm is now considering issuing a statutory warning, formally alerting officials to the severity of these financial and operational issues.

---

EY Australia Prepares for Job Cuts Amid Market Struggles

Across the globe, EY Australia is considering targeted restructuring, including potential layoffs, to cope with worsening market conditions. The firm had anticipated stronger economic recovery in 2025, but demand for consulting services hasn’t met expectations.

The restructuring could impact around 100 technology consulting roles — about 1% of EY Australia’s workforce. The move comes as part of a broader trend of belt-tightening among the Big Four in Australia, especially after PwC Australia’s tax leaks scandal triggered heightened scrutiny on the sector.

---

Big Four Push to Lift Cap on ESG Fees for Audit Clients

A fresh regulatory battle is brewing in the UK, where the Big Four firms are lobbying to remove the cap on fees for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) services provided to audit clients. Current rules, designed to maintain auditor independence, limit non-audit fees (including ESG consulting) to 70% of audit fees.

However, with demand for ESG assurance services soaring under new EU sustainability regulations, the Big Four argue that ESG work should be exempt from the cap. They emphasize that chartered accountants are uniquely qualified to handle ESG audits and that removing the cap would align the UK with more flexible European rules. This debate could significantly impact how Big Four firms grow their ESG service offerings.

---

Big Four Double Down on Hybrid Work Models

While many industries push for stricter return-to-office (RTO) policies, the Big Four are standing firm on hybrid work models. Deloitte, KPMG, EY, and PwC continue to embrace a mix of remote, in-office, and client-site work.

• KPMG and Deloitte allow flexible hybrid schedules with minimal mandates.
• EY recommends 2-3 days per week in the office, but leaves specifics to regional offices.
• PwC UK has the strictest policy, requiring at least 3 days per week at either the office or client sites.

This hybrid-friendly stance highlights the firms’ commitment to flexibility and work-life balance, which remains a key factor in attracting and retaining top talent.

---

Conclusion

From legal innovations and restructuring efforts to regulatory battles and evolving work cultures, the past week has been eventful for the Big Four. As these firms navigate shifting market demands and regulatory pressures, their ability to adapt — whether through new services like KPMG’s law practice or bold policy advocacy on ESG — will shape the future of professional services globally.

Stay tuned for more updates as the Big Four continue to redefine the boundaries between accounting, consulting, and legal services.

The accounting profession is facing a major talent crisis, and KPMG U.S. Chair and CEO Paul Knopp is sounding the alarm. In recent statements, Knopp highlighted the urgent need for reforms to address the growing shortage of accountants, a problem that is already affecting businesses and financial systems across the country.

The Accountant Shortage Crisis

Accounting has long been a stable and respected career path, but in recent years, fewer young professionals are entering the field. This decline is due to a combination of factors, including changing career preferences, an aging workforce, and high educational requirements for CPA licensure. As companies struggle to hire enough accountants, the potential risks to financial reporting, compliance, and corporate governance are increasing.

KPMG CEO’s Perspective

Paul Knopp has pointed to the 150-hour education requirement for CPA licensure as a significant barrier to entry for aspiring accountants. This requirement, which effectively translates to a fifth year of education beyond a standard bachelor’s degree, adds financial and time burdens that many students are unwilling or unable to take on. Knopp argues that this hurdle is deterring talented individuals from pursuing accounting careers at a time when they are needed most.

Proposed Solutions

To combat the shortage, Knopp and KPMG are advocating for alternative pathways to CPA licensure. One such proposal is replacing the additional education requirement with practical work experience or apprenticeship models. This shift could make the profession more accessible and attractive to a broader range of candidates without compromising the quality of financial professionals entering the workforce.

Additionally, firms and regulatory bodies are exploring ways to modernize accounting education, introduce more technology-focused training, and increase outreach to students early in their academic journeys. By promoting accounting as a dynamic and rewarding career choice, these efforts aim to reverse the downward trend in new accountant entries.

The Impact on Businesses

The shortage of accountants isn’t just a challenge for firms—it has broader implications for businesses of all sizes. Without enough qualified professionals, companies may face delays in financial reporting, higher compliance risks, and increased costs as they compete for scarce talent. This issue underscores the need for immediate action to ensure that businesses have access to the skilled accountants they require.

Looking Ahead

The accounting profession is at a crossroads. Without significant reforms, the shortage of accountants could deepen, creating serious consequences for the financial industry. KPMG and other industry leaders are pushing for change, but it will take a concerted effort from educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and businesses to implement meaningful solutions.

Addressing this crisis now will help ensure a strong and sustainable accounting workforce for the future. Whether through policy changes, educational innovation, or shifts in licensure requirements, the time to act is now.

In a significant move that has sparked discussions across the corporate world, KPMG, one of the “Big Four” global accounting firms, recently removed its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives from its website. For years, KPMG has touted its commitment to creating an inclusive workplace, but this decision to take down these prominent references has raised eyebrows. What does this move mean for KPMG, its employees, and the wider conversation about corporate responsibility and DEI?

What’s more, KPMG’s decision is not happening in a vacuum. Deloitte, another member of the “Big Four,” has made similar moves that highlight a shifting approach to DEI. As major firms rethink their strategies, questions are being raised about the future of DEI initiatives in corporate America.

KPMG’s Move: What Happened?

KPMG’s website, which has previously featured various programs and reports on their DEI efforts, has removed key information about these initiatives. While KPMG has not provided a detailed public explanation for the change, this shift has led to speculation and analysis from both employees and experts in the field.

Many are left wondering whether this is an isolated decision or part of a broader trend in corporate America to move away from publicly embracing DEI efforts. Given the growing emphasis on social issues and equity in the workplace, the timing of KPMG’s decision is intriguing.

Deloitte’s Shift in Approach to DEI

KPMG isn’t the only firm that seems to be rethinking its approach to DEI. Deloitte has also made recent adjustments to its diversity strategy. While still committing to diversity and inclusion internally, the company has started to shift its focus toward tangible, long-term outcomes, rather than relying on broad public-facing DEI declarations.

Deloitte has made waves by narrowing the scope of its DEI messaging, opting to emphasize measurable results rather than public initiatives. Like KPMG, Deloitte has faced external pressure to show concrete change. In light of criticism that many DEI programs were performative or lacked real substance, these companies are beginning to rethink how they engage with these sensitive topics both internally and externally.

Why Would KPMG and Deloitte Remove DEI Initiatives?

There could be several reasons behind KPMG and Deloitte’s moves to reduce the visibility of their DEI initiatives, but it is important to remember that corporate decisions like these often come with multiple layers. Here are some possible explanations:

1. Changing Public Sentiment: In recent years, there has been growing scrutiny of corporate DEI programs. While many organizations have prioritized diversity and inclusion, others have faced backlash, accusing companies of “virtue signaling” or not following through on their promises. KPMG and Deloitte may have removed the initiatives to avoid further scrutiny or backlash, focusing instead on other aspects of their work.

2. Internal Strategy Shift: It’s possible that both KPMG and Deloitte are shifting their focus internally on DEI, opting for a more nuanced or private approach to these initiatives. Many organizations are increasingly realizing that true change requires systemic internal transformation rather than just external-facing statements. Both companies might be prioritizing internal training, resources, or corporate culture shifts, opting not to showcase them publicly for the time being.

3. Focus on Results Over Programs: Companies often remove content from websites when they want to focus more on measurable outcomes rather than programs. KPMG and Deloitte may feel that a public display of their DEI work no longer aligns with their commitment to fostering tangible, lasting change in the workplace.

The Potential Impact on Employees and Public Perception

For employees, particularly those who are part of marginalized communities, the removal of DEI initiatives may feel disheartening. Employees at companies with robust DEI programs often expect a strong commitment to these values to be visible at every level of the organization. When initiatives like these are removed from public view, it can lead to uncertainty about the company’s ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion.

On the other hand, for some, the move could signal a potential shift towards more substantive change that isn’t merely for show. If KPMG and Deloitte are focusing on deeper internal progress, this could be viewed as a step away from performative actions toward genuine, long-term transformation.

However, from a public relations perspective, this shift could raise concerns about the firms’ stances on social issues and corporate responsibility. In a time when diversity is more than just a buzzword, companies are under increasing pressure to walk the talk. The removal of DEI initiatives might lead to questions about whether these firms are backing away from commitments made during a period of heightened focus on social justice.

Looking Ahead: Will This Affect KPMG and Deloitte’s Reputations?

Time will tell whether this decision will impact KPMG and Deloitte’s reputations or their ability to attract top talent. The world is watching how companies navigate social issues, and corporations that fail to deliver on DEI promises risk losing the support of employees, customers, and investors alike.

What both companies do next will be key. If they continue to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion through their policies, actions, and results, these moves could be seen as strategic rethinking of how best to drive change. However, if the firms fail to show continued progress or transparency on these issues, the removal of these initiatives from their websites could contribute to negative perceptions about their corporate values.

Conclusion

KPMG and Deloitte’s decisions to remove their DEI initiatives from their websites have ignited important conversations about the role of corporate responsibility and the future of diversity in the workplace. Whether these decisions are part of a larger trend or isolated strategy shifts, it will be essential for both companies to ensure their internal and external commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion remain steadfast.

As businesses continue to navigate the complexities of social responsibility, one thing remains clear: DEI is not just a marketing tool, but an integral part of a healthy, inclusive organizational culture. KPMG and Deloitte’s next steps will tell us whether they are leading the charge in this arena or stepping back from a pivotal movement.