The Accounting Podcast

Attention: This is a machine-generated transcript. As such, there may be spelling, grammar, and accuracy errors throughout. Thank you for your understanding!

Blake Oliver: [00:00:04] It just seems wild that one of the largest accounting firms in the country is telling people, yeah, you got to go get your CPA to work here. But once you do have it, we don't want you using it for anything except proposals.

David Leary: [00:00:18] Coming to you weekly from the OnPay Recording Studio.

Blake Oliver: [00:00:25] Hello everyone, and welcome back to the show. You're listening to the Accounting Podcast, your weekly news roundup of news in the profession. I'm Blake Oliver.

David Leary: [00:00:34] I'm David Leary.

Blake Oliver: [00:00:35] And David, I'm very excited. Today we have a special guest. Mark Koziol, president of the AICPA, is joining us to talk about private equity telling accounting firms or actually rather telling their staff not to use their CPA license or not to not to advertise themselves as CPAs, uh, in email communications and business cards and even on LinkedIn. And apparently this is not a new thing. We talked about this last week. And, uh, the Icpa reached out and and offered Mark on the show. So we're going to be, uh, talking to him about midway, so stick around for that. But first we got to get to the news. David, what is top of mind for you this week?

David Leary: [00:01:17] Um, a story about ramp. Ramp wants to be the spend card for the federal government, and may have an inside track to become that. Wow.

Blake Oliver: [00:01:25] That would be big for accounting tech.

David Leary: [00:01:27] Yeah. An article about a P company. So instead of P buying a firm, a p company is just going to spend $300 million to create an accounting firm from scratch, which is an interesting take.

Blake Oliver: [00:01:37] This is a firm that is, they say going to compete with the big four. Is that right?

David Leary: [00:01:41] That's the plan. That is the plan.

Blake Oliver: [00:01:44] We've got Texas and Tennessee passing legislation creating alternatives to the traditional five year education, eliminating the 150 hour rule, or rather, creating an alternative path to it. Uh, we've also got a draft bill in Congress to eliminate the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which had been rumored that Republicans were thinking about doing. And now it looks like it might happen.

David Leary: [00:02:09] I feel like in the first Trump presidency, you covered Trump wants to get rid of the PCAOB. I feel like you've already talked about this and the First Presidency. So now maybe it's actually going to happen. A bill has been introduced.

Blake Oliver: [00:02:21] It's been going on for a while. It might actually happen now. Yes. And, um, the acting IRS chief commissioner was replaced yet again. I think that means we've had five.

David Leary: [00:02:32] Yeah. So forget.

Blake Oliver: [00:02:32] Last.

David Leary: [00:02:33] Week's news.

Blake Oliver: [00:02:34] Well, we didn't even get to it last week. So I guess, you know, it's like the there's a power struggle between Musk and and Bessant. And now there's another IRS, uh, commissioner. Acting commissioner. What else? Republicans are floating a millionaire tax, creating a new tax bracket for millionaires. I never thought in my lifetime I would see Republicans wanting to increase taxes on the wealthiest. Trump loves this idea. We'll see if it happens. And I mean, there's there's more we could talk about. I don't know if we're going to get to it all. Tariff lawsuits Tesla bump their non-GAAP earnings by emitting a crypto loss. We've got firms using AI that report higher revenue. It's it's in the money. Ai is in the money.

David Leary: [00:03:19] I got money and how much it cost to replace a pope, which I find a little bit interesting. It's way more money than you think it should be.

Blake Oliver: [00:03:27] Welcome to all of our live stream viewers. Hello. Night light. Black pill red. We've got four coffees, four coffee emojis. They're great to see you. Parzival. Hello news retort welcome everyone. If you have any thoughts on the stories we talk about in this episode, or you want to suggest your own, please put those in the comments there on YouTube or LinkedIn or wherever you are watching us. And don't forget you can join us live! Subscribe to The Accounting Podcast on YouTube. Hit that subscribe button notification icon and you'll get notified when we go live and you can hear all the latest episodes before anyone else. So before we get into the news, let's thank our sponsors.

David Leary: [00:04:09] Thank our sponsors. This week's sponsors are Onpay, Bluevine, Cloud Accountant Staffing and Robo Debit. So you'll be hearing from all those sponsors later in the episode.

Blake Oliver: [00:04:19] Okay, let's kick off with this, uh, ramp story. Ramp wants to take over spend management expense management for the federal government. What is how what is happening?

David Leary: [00:04:31] So how is a good question. So, are you familiar? Maybe we should rewind a tad. So there's already a federal spending program out there. It is called Smart play smart pay. Smart pay and smart Pay has been around for a little while and essentially it's gone through phases. They had like a smart pay um, master contract one. Then it went through contract two and a contract three. Currently we're in contract three, smart Pay version three and version two had JPMorgan Chase was the contractor that had that, and the current one, which was awarded August 31st of 2017, is Citibank and US Bank. And they the way that contract was, it had a base and then options to keep extending it out for a total of 13 years. So in theory, the current contract could run until November 29th, 2031. So it could go for another. What's that? Six years six. Seven years. Six and a five and a half, six and a half years. Um, and the way you get this contract is like any other government contract. You go through the bidding process, you know, you watch for the request on the government site, you do a bid, you get awarded the contract and then carry on from there.

David Leary: [00:05:45] And this the current model of this, it allows people to bucket their cards. So there's a fleet card, there's a purchase card a travel card and they have integrated cards where if there's different business lines, it can be on one card. Maybe that person has to do purchases, but travel, they have one card for both of those types of things. Okay. And this all rolls up into stats and controls and data. They have a really nice website if you go there. Smartpay. About statistics. You can download an Excel spreadsheet that has data on all the transactions for the last decade, basically in that spreadsheet. So so it's it's available. It's used by over 560 federal agencies, organizations and Native American tribes. So this is this is what is currently used by all the government agencies. And this is actually what Doge remember when Doge turned everything off? Mhm. This is what Doge turned off. So they set the limits to a dollar. As soon as that happened no money was able to be spent. And that's how Doge control immediately controlled that spending in the beginning.

Blake Oliver: [00:06:50] And this is a big program. This is worth a lot of money to whoever can get into it. It's $700 billion. I don't know if that's per year, but I imagine it could be a lot.

David Leary: [00:07:03] Yeah, I.

Blake Oliver: [00:07:04] Could get a piece of it all.

David Leary: [00:07:05] Yeah, a huge piece. So let's go through a little timeline here. So in January of 2017, ramp published a blog post called The Efficiency Formula, which was basically a pitch. And this pitch, if you step back and we'll go, I'll go into it more in a second. It essentially was like a a test balloon for Doge, maybe not a test balloon, but it was very it sounds like Doge. So this was this before Trump was elected in the first term or before he was inaugurated in the first term? Well, in the first three months of this, Trump's presidency Ramps executives have met with four times with top GSA appointees. So this is the Government Services Administration. Um, and the way they think they got these, um, meetings was because Ramp is funded by Peter Thiel. Uh, Joshua Kushner, Keith Ryobi's and eight VC who are all tied to Trump. Beliefs. Is that the right word? Right. They're they're in with the Trump. The Trump system. Right. Yeah.

Blake Oliver: [00:08:07] Chill was a major supporter of of Trump during the election.

David Leary: [00:08:11] So what happened is in March 2020, March 20th, 2025, the GSA opened a request for information for a pilot program of $25 million because they were trying to decide if do they want to renew it and extend the current one out to 2029 or not? They don't know if they want to do the the option, but they only left it open for seven business days. And it appears that it's already been decided that it's in Ramp's favor. That ramp is going to get this 25 million bucks, right? This $25 million contract. What's more interesting about this, if you start looking at that efficiency formula pitch. This March may have been there for a long time. This might have been ramps play a very long time ago. Um, scroll down to this. So there was a 27 2017 blog post that was updated January 16th, 2025. It was written by Kyle Harrison, who's a general partner at contrary who invested in Ramp and then the CEO of Ramp, Eric Gleeman. So what they use is they use this analogy of out-of-control spending at startups. So startups and that whole concept of blitzscaling, right. They just spend like crazy and try to have that revenue go up.

David Leary: [00:09:30] But the reality is for a lot of startups, once Covid hit and things, the money got tight, it didn't work right. That spend too much and they refer to the spend as a drag. And they even have a formula like a velocity formula, like the revenue minus the drag. And the velocity is the type of a thing. But if you read the blog post, like I said, it sounds like a dose test balloon. So they bucket they they. So they use the metaphor about federal spending by using startups and private enterprise. Then they get into the three things they think are dragging government efficiency Medicare and Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, SBA loan fraud, improper payments. And they say that these three, they call them drag baskets alone accounted for 5.36 billion wasted. And that's 7.9% of the government's entire budget down the drain. So keep in mind this is first Trump term before he was inaugurated. This is not something that was written now. So and then eventually they spin it towards ramp saying, what happens if you take a page out of the private market playbook and apply the efficiency formula to some of the waste in these drag baskets, obviously they get around to pitching ramp, right? As an example of ways private companies have implemented Ramp, and they've saved the best part of this? If you want to call this manifesto blog post they had, is how they talk about the need for a centralized vendor procurement center to level the playing field.

David Leary: [00:10:57] I find it ironic that they're pushing that for that in this blog post, but they completely went around a centralized procurement process to possibly get this pilot, which I find very ironic that they did that. Um, this this blog post, they had actually even mocked up a a theoretical site called Dashboard Gov, which you can't. I've tried to go there, there's nothing there. And you would basically imagine in a world where every department of the US government had the same real time visibility, where you could go and see what other people are spending, how much is a toilet seat for this department versus the Navy? And you could compare and those types of things. I get I get the argument having visibility into data. But to argue that. We should have this central procurement place for all vendors, and then for you to bypass the system is a little bit ironic. Um.

Blake Oliver: [00:11:53] Well, I mean, but but right now there's multiple procurement systems. There, there must be dozens of them across the federal government, and they don't talk to each other. So just imagine the waste that might be occurring and what you could do if you had all that data in one place, like you said, David. Are we paying too much in this department or in this administration? Uh, for for something that somebody else can get cheaper, right? Like, it just makes sense to have it in one place across the federal government. So I don't know. I'm excited by this. I think it's really fascinating. And I guess my only concern, my my biggest concern would be, uh, for ramps, customers in the private sector, because Ramp doesn't have government contracts currently. So they've.

David Leary: [00:12:42] Had no government experience whatsoever.

Blake Oliver: [00:12:44] Right? Could this be a big distraction for them? That's the question for me.

David Leary: [00:12:50] So probably likely. Yes.

Blake Oliver: [00:12:52] All right, David, let's thank our first sponsor on pay Forbes and CNBC rank on pay number one for small business payroll. Onpay really knows how to get payroll done right for every client you serve, no matter how complex their software is, easy to use, and backed by outstanding service levels, they handle new client onboarding for free and have experts on call to keep you and your clients on track. The system includes multi-state payroll, local tax filings, integrated HR tools, and more with no hidden fees. When you join AMP's partner program, you get a custom dashboard to easily manage all clients in one place. Plus, you can gain exclusive perks like revenue sharing or discounts, free payroll for your firm, co-branding opportunities, premium swag, and more. Onpay helps you run your practice efficiently while providing exceptional payroll that your clients can count on. To learn more about using Onpay for your firm and clients. That could be farms, start ups, restaurants, bars, doctors, nonprofits, gyms, franchises, dentists, you name it. Head over to The Accounting Podcast. That's The Accounting Podcast. Thanks, Onpay. Let's talk now about the PCAOB and Republican plans to scrap it. Republican lawmakers have proposed eliminating the PCAOB, the independent audit regulator created after the Enron scandal. The plan would fold the pcaob's the pcaob's responsibilities into the SEC and scrapped the levy on listed companies that funds it. So this is something different about the PCAOB is that it is funded by basically a tax on public companies. And so SEC would take that over and pcob would go away Pcob, by the way, is a nonprofit created by Congress. That is as.

David Leary: [00:14:49] Enron, right?

Blake Oliver: [00:14:50] Post-enron.

David Leary: [00:14:50] Yeah, it's basically a baby in the grand scheme of government. It's brand new.

Blake Oliver: [00:14:55] Yes. And but it's had a it's had a big impact on accountants and accounting firms and auditors. And anyone who hasn't listened to it yet should go listen to our interview with Christina Ho, the, uh, an independent board member at the PCAOB, because she points out a lot of the issues, uh, that the PCAOB has had, uh, in terms of regulating the audit profession over these years. Um, but we'll skip past that. And, um, you know, we'll get to this. Um, PCAOB may have attracted attention of Republican lawmakers because under the current chair, Eric Williams, the agency has taken a more activist approach. They've imposed tougher standards and record fines, although, as we've discussed on this program, those finds pale in comparison to the fees that audit firms charge. So she's had some difficulty in. It seems, in actually making an impact when it comes to that. Um, so yeah, that's that's the story. There's draft legislation there in Congress. The next step is that the House Committee on Financial Services will consider the legislation, and it could be included in the final tax and spending bill, depending on negotiations in the Republican leadership in Congress.

David Leary: [00:16:14] And what's the reasoning like, what's the fundamental argument like why we should get rid of the PCAOB? What's the argument?

Blake Oliver: [00:16:21] You know, I it's not clear. Um, I mean, I think the argument is that it costs 400, $500 million a year. And what do. What has it accomplished in 20 years?

David Leary: [00:16:34] Your argument that audit failures are not getting better?

Blake Oliver: [00:16:37] Right. That that we still have audit failures. Um, and, you know, I don't I guess my question is like, would the Pcob actually prevent another Enron? And I'm not sure that we can definitively answer that. So I think this goes to that whole, um, you know, just cutting government spending where you can. And if a, if an agency or, uh, an organization like Pcob can't defend itself, then it's on the chopping block and it's not popular.

David Leary: [00:17:09] It seems like it's perfect timing because last time that was post 2008. Right? Or right around the last recession. Correct. Was it before 2008 or just after?

Blake Oliver: [00:17:18] Oh, you're talking about the Enron collapse. Enron 2001.

David Leary: [00:17:21] Oh, it was even earlier.

Blake Oliver: [00:17:22] It's a while ago. It's been a.

David Leary: [00:17:24] While. Even before that. Yeah, because I saw an article about how Ponzi schemes tend to bubble up or are discovered when recessions happen. Because people need to withdraw money, they need access to their cash. And then it causes the the tumbling of the, the Ponzi. And so it's interesting to they're going to be public companies that are kind of Ponzi schemes that audits didn't find. But we won't find out about this until after we go to the PCO, get rid of Pcob and get rid of everything, and then the collapses might start happening. We'll find out. Well.

Blake Oliver: [00:17:57] You know, we might we might find out sooner than you think, because these tariffs are causing companies to cut costs and that could lead to a recession. Uh, Wall Street Journal reported that major American corporations are implementing sweeping, cost cutting measures in response to these unpredictable tariffs and trade policies, which seem to be swinging back and forth. And it makes sense they are not sure what exactly is going to happen. We've got, you know, these 10% global reciprocal tariffs. Those were suspended for most countries until July 9th. We're not sure if they are actually going to go into effect. Imports from Canada and Mexico were exempted for the time being. Um, and in transit, goods are that were loaded before April 5th when these tariffs were announced are exempted until May 27th. We've got the the country specific reciprocal tariffs. Those are the ones that are 11% to 50%. Those have also been delayed but only for 57 countries. And there are certain exempted products also goods in transit. At the time the week it was announced, um, you know, you don't have to pay those as long as they enter the country. May 27th. We've got, uh, those tariffs on China. There were those big ones, right? The 125%. I don't even know what it's 145% now tariffs on China. If you had the goods in transit before April 10th you don't have to pay the tariff as long as they get here by May 27th. But what if they don't? Then you got to pay that tariff. And what's going to happen to orders? Basically it's chaos, right? If you're trying to, you know, do forecasting. If you're trying to figure out what to do, you really don't know if this is just a negotiating tactic or if Trump is going to actually follow through with it. And so we've got a story here.

David Leary: [00:19:57] How do you run a business if you are running a huge company that has to produce millions and millions of dollars of products? How do you run your. How do you run a corporation? How do you run a business.

Blake Oliver: [00:20:08] When you don't know what your costs are going to be, and you don't know if those costs are going to be the same as they are now, or they're going to be significantly higher in the future. And it's all about politics. So what these companies are doing is they are actually not doing layoffs yet. Most of them we're not seeing lots of layoffs. Why is that? Well, because if the tariffs don't happen they're going to need those people. So that's like the last resort at this point because the labor market is tight, but what they are doing is cutting costs and delaying investments. So Dow is delaying construction of a plant in Alberta. They're reconsidering plans for chemical plants in Germany and the U.K.. Norfolk Southern is is scrutinizing their consultant fees. That might not be good for the big four. You know, they're trying to save money on fuel and labor costs. Boston Scientific cutting travel costs. Right. People are not going to be traveling as much. Hasbro is is trying to cut 175 to 225 million of costs this year because they don't know what their what their Cogs is going to be. Principal financial group cutting. Consultant spending. Employee travel. Ge aerospace estimates tariffs would cost 500 million this year. So they're also cutting back on corporate travel and back office expenses and hiring, which actually makes me think that ramp might really need this government contract, because if that isn't that a lot of corporate spend is travel, like that's not good for the expense management space.

David Leary: [00:21:44] Yeah. If people stop letting their employees charge things.

Blake Oliver: [00:21:49] Yeah. So, you know, companies are slowing hiring. They're leaving positions unfilled. They're reducing contractor and consultant spending. Um, and a lot of this remains to be seen. We're going to we're going to see what happens over May basically May and June are going to be the the big months to actually see what happens with our economy. Um.

David Leary: [00:22:13] There's even data from the AICPA. They did a poll with the participation with the Harris Poll for Financial Literacy Month, did a survey of 2081 US adults, and pretty much it's a third, are just feeling scared about their finances. They're either feeling cautious or uncertain. They're charging less on credit cards. They've started to try to increase their savings. You know, if you're available. And that's a luxury for you to do that. 27% have delayed major purchases. And the reason why is they've cited high cost of goods and services. 57%. So almost 60% of those surveyed think things are just getting too expensive.

Blake Oliver: [00:22:53] Now another layer to this uncertainty is that there are lawsuits galore over these tariffs. A coalition of 12 states filed a lawsuit against President Trump in the US Court of International Trade. And the lawsuit says it alleges it challenges Trump's use of tariffs that he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They're saying that Trump illegally bypassed Congress and exceeded his constitutional authority. Now that act, the Emergency Powers Act, allows the president to regulate trade during a national emergency, but it doesn't specifically allow the president to change tariff rates. There's no mention of tariffs in that act. And also, can an ongoing. The question is, can an ongoing situation like persistent trade deficits, which have existed for decades, can that count as a national emergency? Or is it completely up to the president to determine what that is? Which to me, seems like how could how could that be? How could it be that, you know, the president can just unilaterally decide what a national emergency is that? Well, then there's no point in defining, like having the word, the phrase national emergency in the law. So, like, there's a chance all of this could be reversed in the end, but we don't know what's going to happen. Uh, companies have also been filing lawsuits, not big ones, I think, because, you know, they're afraid of. You know what could happen here? But, um, small companies with nothing to lose are filing lawsuits as well. So we will see. Actually, here's a story about tariffs while we're on it. That's kind of interesting. Um, Pepsi versus Coke. Pepsi or Coke?

David Leary: [00:24:48] Coke.

Blake Oliver: [00:24:49] Coke. Okay, well, Coke has the advantage in the tariff war because years ago, decades ago, Pepsi decided to move all of the production of their concentrate for their US sodas to Ireland. And they did it for tax benefits. But those products are now subject to a 10% tariff, whereas Coca Cola manufactures its concentrate for US market sodas in Atlanta and Puerto Rico, which shields it from these tariffs. So the tariffs are actually going to tilt up tilt the Pepsi versus Coke battle. Yeah the soda wars. Coke. Coke might finally win right. Completely. So it's just I sympathize for all the folks in finance and accounting at these corporations, because there's just no way to project what is going to happen at this point. I mean, can you imagine, like having to try to forecast this and imagine, like the pressure from the C-suite for all these different scenarios? This is the problem.

David Leary: [00:25:52] Every day they're calling you, they want a different answer, like, what's the effect now? Then tomorrow there's a different decision. How is this going to affect us now? And you're just spinning your wheels if you're in a the accounting or finance offices.

Blake Oliver: [00:26:03] Exactly. This this is the this is the problem with the idea of using tariffs as a negotiating tool. It just creates so much uncertainty for you as businesses that even if the tariffs don't happen, they have paused spending. And that slows the economy now. So there is a real world impact to it. Another example that in in sort of popular I know consumer culture is that Levi Strauss is more exposed to tariffs than Wrangler. Wrangler produces 40% of its products in the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico, which is currently exempt from the tariffs under the Usmca. Um, but Strauss Levi Strauss doesn't, um, crest the toothpaste mostly us made. They may have an advantage over Colgate, which produces some of its US bound toothpaste in Mexico. And we don't know like what's going to happen with the tariffs there. So, David, I think now would be a good time to thank our second sponsor.

David Leary: [00:27:05] I'll read this Bluevine your small business clients deserve banking built specifically for them. Meet Bluevine, the business banking platform created to save you and small businesses time, money and hassle with Bluevine. Your clients don't need a savings account. They can earn up to 1.5% APY on checking balances when they meet an activity goal, or up to 3.7% APY automatically with upgraded plans and with no monthly fees for a standard plan. Customers free standard ACH and competitive rates on same day ACH wires and international payments, they'll save more where it counts. Bluevine doesn't stop there. Powerful tools like multiple Subaccounts for better budgeting, shared account access with secure logins and automated accounts payable. Streamlining how your clients manage invoices, approvals and payments. And for you, Bluevine dedicated accountant dashboard gives 24 over seven secure access to all your clients accounts in one place. No more chasing down statements or check images with seamless integration with QuickBooks online reconciliations are faster and accounts payable workflows are simplified. Plus, as a partner with Bluevine, accountants get access to a free, upgraded plan with 3.7% APY and a bonus of $200 or more for each new qualified client referral you make with Bluevine? You're not just managing accounts, you're setting your clients up for success while making your job easier. If you are ready to become a valued bluevine partner and unlock exclusive rewards just for accountants, head over to The Accounting Podcast. That is The Accounting Podcast. Thank you Bluevine.

Blake Oliver: [00:28:46] The IRS has a new acting Commissioner. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has appointed Michael Faulkender. This is like the new boy.

David Leary: [00:28:55] It's on. It's off again. There's a new commissioner next week. There's a new commissioner. This is getting out of control.

Blake Oliver: [00:29:00] This is the fifth acting commissioner in less than 100 days of Trump's administration, and the third in less than a week. So Faulkender will serve until the Senate confirmation of nominee Billy Long, a former House representative. If Billy Long can get confirmed, the previous commissioner, Gary Shapley, he was reportedly installed at Elon Musk's urging without Besson's knowledge. And The New York Times reported that Besson complained directly to President Trump about Musk circumventing him in the appointment. And that's how this happened. So a little power struggle going on between Musk, Doge and Bessent. Bessent said, quote, trust must be brought back to the IRS, unquote. That was when he was announcing the leadership change.

David Leary: [00:29:51] And the new leader, Michael Flynn. That's how you say his last name. He is a former leader for the Paycheck Protection Program. So he has this great success track to follow up his career with. I have a question. Why? What is taking the, um, the auctioneer guy, Billy Long? What's taking so long for this to happen? Is it just not? They have other priorities and they just haven't gotten to him.

Blake Oliver: [00:30:17] As we discussed on the show. Billy Long has associations with multiple irk mills. Yes. And so I think getting through the due diligence, the, uh, that that the Senate demands is proving to be a challenge. And we had a recent update on this. He has made some campaign finance disclosures. Apparently, Billy Long used campaign donations to repay himself $130,000 from a previously failed Senate campaign. And and the way it happened is a bit suspicious. His campaign suddenly received nearly $137,000 after Trump announced him as the IRS pick in January, despite raising less than $36,000 in the two years following his failed Senate bid. So Billy Long ran for Senate years ago. His campaign coffers were still open and he owes he he loaned money to the campaign, which he lost. So he gets nominated. He gets $137,000 donated to this campaign. That happened two years ago. And then he just paid himself the money. That that doesn't look great. So the Democrats in the Senate are raising concerns about this. It's getting out there. It's in the press. This was reported, uh, you know, in major news publications. I caught it on CPA Practice Advisor. And so I think it's they're slow rolling his nomination for that. And maybe he'll get through. But we've seen some of Trump's nominees, you know, fail to make it through.

David Leary: [00:32:01] There's much more publicity. And they they they put them out there in front of Congress. And they're asking them questions on the microphone in front of everybody. And I feel like this is just it's almost like it's not happening. Like it's just like you said, it's slow played or stalled.

Blake Oliver: [00:32:15] Right? So, you know, No. Maybe he. Maybe he will get through eventually, or maybe not. And we'll just have a series of acting commissioners. But it's certainly not great for the IRS. You need long term, stable leadership, whoever that is. So, David, um, I'm really curious about this story that you mentioned that this there's a private equity firm spending $300 million to build an accounting firm.

David Leary: [00:32:41] Well, so there's.

Blake Oliver: [00:32:41] Isn't isn't that isn't the normal, uh, strategy just to, like, buy an accounting firm? Like, why would they. Why would they do this?

David Leary: [00:32:48] I don't know the why, but they're going to try to do it. Um, Warburg Pincus, they're putting up to $300 million in funding to two former executives from EY and PwC, Steve Varley and Marissa Thomas. They have a new accounting firm. They're going to launch in June of 2025. So basically, you know, 40 days from now, they're going to launch a new accounting firm called Unity Advisory. They claim to challenge the Big Four by focusing on mid-sized private equity backed companies offering tax consulting, technology and M&A advisory services, but no audit services to avoid conflicts of interest. Their hiring strategies they want to recruit Big Four alumni and industry veterans, and they think they have a unique approach, which is AI led and client centric model with low administrative overhead. So they have a plan. I just if it feels like just the startup, it's just I mean, basically being a startup venture capitalist instead of buying an established thing here.

Blake Oliver: [00:33:53] Well, but ... I mean, with $300 million, they could hire a lot of people. So I'm I'm curious, what is this going to do to the talent shortage, especially if they're aiming to compete with the larger firms? Are they going to be, uh, you know, poaching the best and brightest from the big firms with $300 million.

David Leary: [00:34:14] And it looks like they're trying to niche into other midsize businesses that are private equity backed. So they must see a market opportunity based on their own experiences, which happens a lot. That's how a lot of these startups that are like a founder has a hard time using QuickBooks. And they say, I'm going to create a Starbucks or a startup and destroy QuickBooks and like, it almost feels like this is the private equity company was not happy with the service they got at the big four. And they probably have a theory of like, well, we could service private equity companies better. And that's what it feels like the march there on.

Blake Oliver: [00:34:49] Let's talk about let's talk about the new alternative CPA pathways. And then we'll get to that interview. But first we need to thank our third sponsor Cloud Accountant Staffing. Thank you cloud Accountant Staffing. In case you missed the last 100 or so episodes, David and I have been discussing almost weekly that there is an accountant talent shortage. Regardless of the root cause, the problem is real. My social media feeds are full of firms attempting to fill open positions on their teams, but how can anyone increase their staff size if everyone is attempting to hire during a labor shortage? That's where cloud accountant staffing comes in. They'll help you hire full time team members for your firm that reside in the Philippines. How much would your firm change? Or for that matter, your life? If you could add 40, 80, 120 hours of capacity to your firm in 2025? Cloud Accountant Staffing was founded by a firm owner who grew his firm using offshore talent, and now he is applying everything he learned to help you grow your firm. If your firm is in need of expert bookkeepers, accountants, CPAs or virtual assistants, head over to The Accounting Podcast.

Blake Oliver: [00:35:56] That's The Accounting Podcast. And now a bit of brief news about the CPA pipeline. Tennessee has passed a law creating a new path to CPA licensure. This initiative was supported by the Tennessee Society of CPAs, and it basically mirrors the other states that are implementing similar measures to expand the CPA pipeline. Um, you know, they're going from 150 semester hours of college education to now we have this alternative 120 semester hours of college education, including a bachelor's degree, plus two years of accounting experience for both options, whether you do 150 or 120, the coursework needs to include an accounting concentration, as determined by the Tennessee State Board of Accountancy rule. The legislation also includes CPA practice mobility provisions so that CPAs can still practice across state lines. Current and future CPAs who don't have a principal place of business in Tennessee will be able to practice in the state if they hold a valid CPA license in good standing from another state. And if, at the time of licensure, they showed evidence of having passed the uniform CPA exam and.

David Leary: [00:37:14] To save a lot of time, Texas everything Blake just said, but put Texas in front of it as well.

Blake Oliver: [00:37:20] And then I don't know if we talked about this last time, but Indiana also did it. Did we did we talk about Indiana? It's like they.

David Leary: [00:37:27] Just lose track. There's so many states now. We're pushing 14 or 15. I think now it's becoming significant amount.

David Leary: [00:37:35] Yes.

Blake Oliver: [00:37:36] It's we're we're getting close to that 30 states that we've heard about that are, you know, we talked about, I don't know, last month that we're considering it or doing it. They're all doing it. They're getting it done. Um, I guess one more thing before we get to the Marcos, the millionaire tax ID or ID idea. The millionaire tax idea, uh, which just kind of. I'm sorry to just maybe I'm just getting old, but it kind of blows my mind that Republicans are talking about raising taxes on the wealthy.

David Leary: [00:38:08] And this is.

David Leary: [00:38:09] Why I feel like I saw two headlines like Republicans and Trump were for it. And then I saw another headline that maybe Trump's against it because he thinks everybody's going to move out of the country. I'm not really like, please fill me in on this because I feel like I saw conflicting headlines.

Blake Oliver: [00:38:23] I did too.

Blake Oliver: [00:38:24] Uh.

Blake Oliver: [00:38:25] Well, sometimes that happens with Trump, right? He expresses different opinions and they get taken in different ways. He told time magazine that he, quote, loves the concept of higher taxes on millionaires, but he worries that it could hurt him politically. So what is this change? It would be a new 40% tax bracket for those earning more than $1 million annually. The tax could generate $400 billion in revenue over a decade, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also said that everything is on the table regarding the tax bill. But Republicans in Congress may not be so excited about it. So we'll see if this happens, it would give Trump flexibility in his other tax cuts. He wants to do like that, maybe making tips tax exempt, something like that. Um, but.

Blake Oliver: [00:39:21] Like you said, David.

David Leary: [00:39:22] Political, he only has one term left. It's not like he can rerun the the members of Congress who might vote for this. They should fear. But. Right. This is it. This is all. It's his legacy. Run. It doesn't. It doesn't matter what he does. He's not rerunning. At least some people believe he's going to try to rerun, but in general, like he's not going to rerun. This is it. Whatever he implements is it doesn't. He has no political loss happening in the future other than.

Blake Oliver: [00:39:46] Well, you know, David.

Blake Oliver: [00:39:48] Never say never with Trump.

David Leary: [00:39:49] Right. That's true. That's true.

Blake Oliver: [00:39:51] I remember when it was inconceivable that he would have a second term. And yet here we are, right? The the man. The man defies expectations. Let's just put it that way. Um, all right, let's get to Mark Koziel And sorry we didn't get to this thing about firms using I reporting higher revenue. I mean, that's the story. I'll get into the details next time and we'll talk about Tesla next time as well. So without further ado, here is Mark Koziel, president of the AICPA. Hello, everyone. Welcome back to the show. Today we're joined by Mark Koziel, who became the CEO of the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants this January after leading a lineal global mark. Welcome to the show.

Mark Koziel: [00:40:42] Thanks for having me, guys.

Blake Oliver: [00:40:45] So, Mark, one of our.

Blake Oliver: [00:40:47] Listeners sent us a message and they said, there's this private equity firm that bought a big accounting firm and that's nothing new. I think something like 11 of the top 30 accounting firms in the United States have now taken private equity money, investment of some sort. And this particular firm, though is doing something interesting. They are telling their CPAs not to hold themselves out as CPAs in emails with clients, not to put their CPA in email signatures, not to put it on any documentation with clients. And also kind of, shockingly, not to call themselves CPAs on LinkedIn, not to put the three letters after their name on LinkedIn. And I posted this on LinkedIn and it created quite a stir. A lot of CPAs not very happy with this policy and and critical of of private equity for for making that happen.

David Leary: [00:41:43] It might be your most viewed LinkedIn post ever. I think hundreds of thousands of views and comments on it. People have a lot of opinions about this.

Blake Oliver: [00:41:50] Yeah, like 145,000 in like a week, which is you know, that's a lot of people on that's a lot of accountants. I mean, you know, we don't we've got what, 660,000 CPAs or something.

Blake Oliver: [00:41:59] Uh, so that's.

Blake Oliver: [00:42:01] A pretty good chunk of them, right? So, um, uh, I want to get your take on this Mark.

Blake Oliver: [00:42:06] Like what? Like what?

Blake Oliver: [00:42:09] What do you think about this situation with. With private equity? Telling CPAs not to be CPAs.

Mark Koziel: [00:42:15] So it hasn't started with the private equity firms. This has actually been around, I think, for a number of years. We've heard those rumors in the big for us for a period of time, but I think it's starting to become, uh, more of an issue. And I don't know that it's the private equity firm per se. So we had our regional council meetings where we split up our our AICPA Council Governing Council into four quadrants. And, uh, we go in a week Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, New York, Chicago, LA, Dallas. And it came up in New York in the first one, and it was actually one of the state societies raised their hand and said, hey, you know, the private equity firms are telling, uh, their alternative practice structure people the tax advisory not to put CPA on their email or on LinkedIn. And so they naturally assumed that it was the private equity firm that was driving that. And it actually was not. It was actually the legal team. And why that's become so fresh. Because we've had apps for a long period of time. But the current issue right now kind of gets kind of into this whole issue around changing the adding an additional pathway to CPA and mobility. And so one of the firms that was in the room, who is backed by private equity, said that it was actually because they have a number of offices in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana. And the firm is afraid of getting tripped up in some type of an issue around mobility. If I'm a I'm a CPA, but I'm not going to be recognized in this other state, what does that look like? And so I think there's a lot of driving forces around it.

Mark Koziel: [00:44:02] Um, just to say it's a private equity. Telling the firm what to do isn't necessarily what's happening. And maybe in some of them and not all of them, who knows? But to me, it's it's problematic. I think, you know, first and foremost, I'm incredibly proud that I, I have the CPA. I always have been coming from a blue collar family. I think it was important for me to try and get that education and do that. One of the things that when we talked about it in the, uh, in the regional council meetings, I told the council members, I said, look, there's one thing I can guarantee I will never, never pass that exam again. And so you can take those three letters out of my cold, dead hands, because I am incredibly proud of it. And I do think, you know, we are doing a disservice to our young professional by telling them it's important for them to pass exam. Oh, yeah. But by the way, you can't call yourself a CPA. And so We are looking at some things. What can we do to better understand this? How do we work with the state boards? Because I think there's just a lot of confusion around it. If I don't put it on my business card, am I still, you know, subject to the CPA rules because I'm still licensed to be a CPA? There's just a lot, a lot to it. Sorry. That was a long answer.

Speaker3: [00:45:22] No that's fine. So to summarize.

Blake Oliver: [00:45:24] It.

Speaker3: [00:45:24] Sounds like it's the legal teams.

Blake Oliver: [00:45:28] In these firms that are saying, don't have your CPAs hold out of CPAs, and why are they doing that?

Mark Koziel: [00:45:34] It they are afraid of any type of liability concerns, especially crossing over state lines. And are you properly licensed in the states in which you're doing business? It's easy in tax to cross over state lines when you have a corporate tax return that happens to be in five states. Are you appropriately licensed in all five states? We don't see it as much in audit and assurance because typically you see, uh, different scenarios around that. But again, you know, some firms may be doing it an audit and we haven't seen it yet, but other firms seem to it only seemed to be on the advisory side that people were concerned about it. My example is how I do. My license is, uh, you know, I'm licensed in North Carolina. I was originally licensed in New York, and I transferred my license to North Carolina when I moved here in 2006. And at that point, then I have now just a North Carolina license. And, uh, after my signature, you'll see that I have CPA, and then I have North Carolina and my license number. You know, I think that's enough to say it. But, you know, I think we really need to better understand the rules. We need to do a better job of communicating that, uh, to, to the profession so that people understand what it means from one side to the next. And we aren't going to have more Conversations with some of the firms just to try and figure that out too.

Blake Oliver: [00:47:02] It's true that this is not new. More listeners reached out after I posted this and said, actually, this is happening at my firm. This has been the policy at Deloitte for years, and it's not like Deloitte has taken private equity money. They actually have a formal policy. I got a screenshot of it that tells their CPAs not to advertise themselves as CPAs. You know, not to use it in emails. It is, uh, but also on social media. It says CPAs in licensed Deloitte, US firms are prohibited from holding out as a CPA on social media sites, including but not limited to LinkedIn, email signatures, business cards, stationery, building directories, telephone listings and other such directories. Cpas in unlicensed Deloitte firms. So the the alternative practice structure firms, the CPA entities, they're prohibited from holding out as a CPA in any matter. And then. But but if you are in a licensed CPA firm at Deloitte, you are permitted to hold out as a CPA in resumes, proposals, engagement letters and other communications for distribution to the public, clients or potential clients. And the materials must reference the state or jurisdiction in which you are licensed. So we have this situation. This is the official policy. It's you know, 007 is the is the number of that policy in their in their documentation. And they're telling their CPAs not to use CPA on LinkedIn, social media sites anywhere, business cards, emails. And but you can do it if you're doing an engagement letter or proposal. So like help me understand this, Mark. Like, it just seems wild that one of the largest accounting firms in the country is telling people, yeah, you got to go get your CPA to work here. But once you do have it, we don't want you using it for anything except proposals.

Mark Koziel: [00:49:00] I think it highlights the confusion in the marketplace, and that's where we need better answers. And we need to make sure that the rules of engagement are appropriate for folks to hold out. I mean, why is it that there are other, uh, other businesses out there that seem to value the CPA more than our own profession? At times when H&R block wants to advertise the fact that, you know, they have CPAs on staff to be able to help their customers do what it is that they need to do. I do think we need better answers for that. We need to work with the state boards and figure out, uh, you know, why is there confusion? Where is there confusion, and how do we better answer that?

David Leary: [00:49:44] And is this legal risk all hypothetical or the great question?

Mark Koziel: [00:49:48] I'm not a I'm not a lawyer to a pine or deny, uh, what the legal risks may be. I mean, lawyers are there to try and minimize risk as much as possible. I get that. Uh, so we just need to make sure that as a profession, we're showing up, uh, the way we need to show up in the marketplace.

Blake Oliver: [00:50:08] So there's the idea that this is being pushed by the legal teams. This is a way to protect the firm from people thinking that they're working with a CPA and they're not, and it's not a CPA firm and causing those kind of legal issues. But one of the more cynical takes on social media is that, you know, firms like Deloitte, actually all the big firms are offshoring, outsourcing. They are using unlicensed accountants in the US and around the world, and fewer CPAs, and they don't want their clients knowing that they're not always working with a CPA. So if you just tell everyone not to say you're a CPA, then the clients will just assume that everybody they work with is a CPA. What's your take on that mark?

Mark Koziel: [00:50:54] Well, I will say that I think the the non use of CPA happened far before uh India outsourcing happened. So I don't know that that is necessarily the fact that started that. And I do know that I was in India last January when I was with in my prior role, uh, visiting with our member firms and the, the India office of the US firms of some of our firms here in the US. And, you know, that's just not fact. Uh, and many of them are licensed there. They are looking to get licensed as a US CPA. Uh, or uh, India, CA but also think about the fact that when I, as a senior or a new associate at a firm, I'm not licensed and we don't really have that issue, and that's a lot of the work that is being had handled for capacity reasons. And a lot of these, uh, offices that are set up in other countries. So, you know, I don't know that, uh, client's going to say. Well, wait a minute. That person who sent out all our accounts receivable confirmations aren't CPAs. I didn't know that. I'm going to fire that firm and go with another one. That's not. You know, they haven't replaced CPA or CPA, and many of the firms actually do not require the CPA until manager. And even some firms have relieved that a little bit all over the board, smaller firms. If someone hadn't passed the exam, uh, to allow them to become a manager in the firm, even some of those rules have softened in a lot of firms over time. So I can't equate, uh, one to the other, uh, based on that.

Blake Oliver: [00:52:33] Um, so. The way private equity tends to do these deals with these alternative practice structures is, uh, you take a CPA firm, traditional CPA firm, and you split it into two entities, and you have a non CPA entity that does everything but a test work and audit work. And then you have the original CPA firm much smaller now that just does that. But they share the same name. They are the same website. They're almost indistinguishable to anyone who doesn't know. There's disclaimers everywhere that say this website is the CPA firm. All attest and audit services are provided by the CPA firm. But it's not something that most people would ever be aware is happening. And I'm sure most of the clients of these firms that take private equity money and do the APS have no clue. So that's where this comes from, from a legal perspective, is, uh, this move is that well, we've got these two entities now, and there's rules about when you can hold yourself out as a CPA to avoid creating confusion in the mind of the public. So it seems like the legal teams at these firms are basically saying, yeah, it's confusing if we hold ourselves out as CPAs or if our staff holds themselves out as CPAs. The public might think that they're getting services from a CPA firm when they're not. So isn't that a. That's a public protection issue. Right.

Mark Koziel: [00:54:14] Well, you know, it's the question is always and I think in the structure, a lot of what's happening in the structure is based on what the rules of engagement are state by state. Right. So the states are requiring that firms are CPA firms are 51% owned by CPAs. And so that's where the alternative practice structure was created. And this is not new. This is not private equity exclusive. This was created back in the, you know, late 90s really in the early 2000 with public company at the time. And so, you know, I think that public protection is always paramount for us to in what we think about for the community and what happens. Um, I think the disclaimers are there. They're right. Even. Who was it that was going to split into two, two organizations between audit and then an alternative practice structure? These are what are today's rules of engagement. And I do think that the the firms, the way that they're talking to their clients, they are talking about the two structures in which they have and how they operate, uh, separately and how they operate together. So that has been, uh, part of the system, uh, as far as engagement letters and, and how they do reporting and the like. So it's not like they are hiding things from their clients or even in proposals when they're doing it. What we see from a website perspective may be different than than how those conversations happen on a client by client basis.

Blake Oliver: [00:55:58] So what is the AICPA doing about this to protect the the value of the CPA? I, as an individual spend a lot of time getting licensed. Then I go work for a firm that tells me, sorry, you can't hold yourself out as a CPA because we've got this alternative practice structure that we've created and we don't want liability. But what is what is AICPA doing to protect my right to call myself a CPA?

Mark Koziel: [00:56:30] We're getting with the firms. Now this is relatively and keep in mind I'm on day number 115. So I, I love all the AICPA, uh, comments about what it is that we're up to. And it is something that's a focal point of mine. Now coming up, I have a number of meetings with a variety of firms, and I do believe we can, uh, have some good discussions with the firms, get a better understanding, get the state boards more involved in coming up with a solution that's right. For people to actually want to be a CPA and also being able to to hold out as CPA. Uh, so that has already started. It's early, but it's going to take, uh, a lot of conversation to get to that point.

David Leary: [00:57:18] I mean, is this a threat to the CPA itself eventually, if if enough accountants are at firms and they tell them, don't use your CPA anywhere, the next thing in my mind is like, why should I even maintain my CPA? And then why should I pay for my membership? The AICPA like this is a threat, right? Ultimately.

Mark Koziel: [00:57:34] You know, and I don't I don't worry as much about the threat to the AICPA as I do the profession and to the, the, the the public right. And I've said time and again, and maybe it's because I grew up as an auditor, right? So I spent, uh, 12 years in public accounting. I went into business and industry for three years, uh, before my first stint at the AICPA. And I had a lot of great audit clients, local community. I said practicing in Buffalo was like, that was Main Street America to me, right? And it was just a fantastic learning experience. And I said that as a firm, because we expanded services as a firm, because we set ourselves, we can't survive on audit only we can't survive on audited tax only. Buffalo is a very limited marketplace, and unless we expand geographies which no one was interested in, the only way we could grow our business is to grow the number of services and have a bigger reach out into the marketplace. We did a lot of that when I was there. And so at the at the core of all of that is the fact that the only thing we are licensed to do is actually the audit. Everything else that we do is by permission in the marketplace, but we are given that permission because of the trust that we've created as being good auditors and being in public interest in who we are as a profession. That's what needs to remain. And no matter how much those those advisory services expand into what we do, we need to know at the core that we are a trusted profession and we have an important part of what we do in the marketplace.

Blake Oliver: [00:59:15] But what's happening is that all of those services that you grew in your firm in Buffalo, the non attest non-audit stuff, the stuff that is driving value for clients beyond traditional assurance. That is now because of private equity. And this apps strategy, which seems to be the dominant one that is now carving out all of that into non CPA firms. So what's actually happening is that the CPA firms are shrinking. They are becoming smaller and more limited. So what is. Is that not is that a that's that seems like a bad thing to me. Like we don't want CPA firms to get smaller if we want to promote the profession.

David Leary: [01:00:02] Because they're carving out the more profitable, better business units as its own separate business unit and say, we don't need CPAs in this business unit. We're not even allowed to say they're CPAs in this business unit. And you're right, it's just.

Mark Koziel: [01:00:13] No, they need they absolutely need CPAs in that business unit. They still need, uh, that's the beauty of it is what we've said is this has been the trend in the profession is rather than saying it is CPA only, it is CPA led. And we're still seeing that even in the APS structures that they do have CPAs that are in the leadership, uh, very consistently. Now, there's been a number of firms, if you look at, uh, some of the largest firms that the CEO of the firm actually isn't even a CPA, but they still value it, and they still have, uh, a good representation on the board of CPAs. Knowing it still needs to be a CPA led organization as we go forward. Uh, and I think that's the important aspect, and that's something that we're going to continue to see. The firms that are still as one, uh, are going to continue to practice that way and still be CPA led and primarily CPA owned. How we structure the APS. It is still an overall a CPA led organization, and I would even some of the private equity firms that I've spoken to, they do see incredible value in the CPA, in the in the audit practice as a trust mechanism to support the other pieces of that. They don't see it as, you know what, uh, we're just going to let that die on the vine and we're only going to focus on the profitable advisory services. They know there's there's an Ecosystem that becomes really important in all of it.

Blake Oliver: [01:01:43] But there's no guarantee that these firms will continue to be CPA led, because once you make this split, the non CPA firm can have ownership of any kind. So like they may currently be leading it, but who's to say they're going to in the future. And like that to me seems like a problem when you have a CPA firm and a CPA firm sharing the same brand and holding themselves out with the same name to the public, and the public doesn't know that the CPAs aren't in charge anymore. Isn't that a problem?

Mark Koziel: [01:02:18] Well, so if you think about even, uh, some of the branded firms, I have to go back and look, because I wasn't sure if Anderson, who's come in as a tax only firm but have taken the old brand, whether or not they're classifying themselves as CPA firm or not. I think it's the same. And we could talk about small firms all day, and a lot of the small firms who are saying, you know what I am? I am a cast only practice. Uh, and I'm not going to hold out as a CPA firm because I don't want to be subject to peer review, which actually, if you do cast only, you're not subject to peer review. So we we have some education that you need to do on that.

Blake Oliver: [01:02:56] But I'm talking about the, the big firms, you know, like a cohnreznick, right. Or a Citrin Cooperman who are doing audit and assurance and all this other stuff, like do their clients know that the firm is no longer that the CPAs are no longer in charge?

Mark Koziel: [01:03:11] The CPAs are still in charge of as they are in many other instances. Yes, there's a board now of, uh, that they have that are representative of a variety of folks that are there. But, uh, the CPAs are still there. It's again, from a strategy standpoint.

Speaker5: [01:03:30] But if private equity.

Blake Oliver: [01:03:31] If private equity takes a majority investment in the CPA firm, they control it. And those are that means it's non CPAs owning the firm that the control have a controlling interest in the firm.

Mark Koziel: [01:03:41] It is uh, but from a strategy standpoint I can tell you where we're at today. They are very interested in the firm doing the things that it needs to do as it has in the past. They have provided some additional guidance, but there has not been, uh, this major influence to completely take over the CPA space and say, this is how we're going to tell you you're going to run your practice.

David Leary: [01:04:08] But if you wanted to do that, the first step I would take was tell people, stop putting CPA on all your stuff. That would be my first step to not that.

Mark Koziel: [01:04:16] But you're still it was a PE firm that drove that, not the legal team on mobility issues and the fact that it was already in the marketplace and in the firms well before that ever happened. It's not it wasn't just the big four, uh, back then either. And it wasn't only PE back firms. So if that argument Mitt is saying that this is being. This is because of PE, that we're at the point that we're in today and it's not. And we need to take a look at what the real issues are behind it and see what we can do to to help fix that.

Blake Oliver: [01:04:51] Mark, we're out of time. Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate you coming on the show and offering your perspective.

Mark Koziel: [01:04:57] Great. Thanks.

Blake Oliver: [01:04:59] That was such a great interview. I thank you again for joining us on the show. David, let's thank our final sponsor before we go. It's robo debit. As an accountant, you know the drill. Constantly looking up account balances, then computing and posting those routine journal entries for loan interest, Cogs, estimates, commissions or salary re classes. Wouldn't it be nice if this just happened automatically? Well, now it can with Robo debit. This brilliant new app automates the posting of daily, weekly or monthly journal entries, all based on an account balance that you choose. No more waiting until month end. Your financials will stay updated throughout the month. It's so simple it's genius. Imagine automatically accruing loan interest, pulling 5% commissions from monthly sales or reclassing 25% of wages to Cogs exactly when you want. Every day, every week, or every month. Right on schedule. If you know your sales data is ready by 5 p.m., set the entry to post at 5:30 p.m.. Done. Robo debit launched its beta on January 1st, and you can be among the first to try it as one of their robo groupies. You'll get early access discounts for the first four months of your subscription. Have a say in future enhancements, and even snag some cool robo debit merch. If you're ready to let your journal entries post themselves. Sign up as a beta user and become a robo groupie. Head over to The Accounting Podcast debit that is The Accounting Podcast promo. And don't forget. Go for it, David.

David Leary: [01:06:37] Do you wonder how much it costs to replace the Pope?

Blake Oliver: [01:06:40] Go for it. Tell me.

David Leary: [01:06:41] How much. Okay, I tell you, it's probably anywhere between 15 to $50 million.

Blake Oliver: [01:06:47] That sounds kind of cheap to me, actually, for a pope. Like.

David Leary: [01:06:52] Because you have the funeral cost itself, which apparently an anonymous donor covered the whole cost of the actual funeral. Imagine being at that point in your life where you you're such fear of not going to heaven. You pay for the Pope's funeral.

Blake Oliver: [01:07:05] Just sponsor the Pope's funeral.

David Leary: [01:07:07] Pope funeral to get your get your ticket in. But. And then you think about the conclave. There's 135 cardinals that are eligible to participate. So hundreds of people flying all the way into the Vatican, they're getting locked up. They're there for a couple of days. It's all expense. And they don't they don't release the exact numbers, but they have some estimations of from history. So in 1978, apparently they had to replace two popes back to back. Apparently they picked one that wasn't the right one and died and then had to pick a new one. They spent about $20 million that year, which is approximately $101 million in today's money, and Pope John Paul the second, his funeral and the election then with the conclave was about $9.7 million, or 14.7 of today's dollars. So this is going to be a $50 million expense by the time this is done this week for the for the Vatican.

Blake Oliver: [01:08:04] Well, you know, the Vatican can just pull some art out of its, uh, of its library and museums and finance it. I think they're good. They're probably probably okay with cash flow. Um, this is that interesting time when you turn on CNN and Fox News and, like, all you see is like a chimney for a while.

David Leary: [01:08:26] They just watch the chimney.

Blake Oliver: [01:08:27] It's just the chimney and the smoke. Do you remember last time how they made the wrong call? I think they, they like, uh, you know, they weren't sure whether the smoke was the right color.

David Leary: [01:08:35] They couldn't tell the color.

Blake Oliver: [01:08:37] It was, um. Well, you know, that's what that's what we get to watch during the day now. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. Don't forget, you can earn free continuing professional education for tuning in to the accounting podcast. Download the free earmark app from the App Store, or just go to Earmark app in your browser. Sign up for free. Take a course every week for free. And if you want to support our work at earmark by an unlimited subscription, it's only $150 per year for unlimited on demand CPE, and we're going to be doing live CPE soon. Uh, stay tuned for information about that. We got our Nasba, uh, sponsor approval for live, in-person continuing education. And thank you, everyone who joined us today who commented. I apologize that we couldn't get to all of your comments, but we read them, we see them. We love having you with us and hope that we'll see you again sometime soon.

David Leary: [01:09:32] And as promised last week we did record an episode, a special bonus episode of the podcast. I just put it in the comments that you can get CPE for, and it's about the movie The Accountant. So go watch the movie The Accountant. Listen to this episode and you can get CPE for it's the.

Blake Oliver: [01:09:49] For the first one, not the second.

David Leary: [01:09:51] One. Accountant one not accountant two we just saw accountant two on Friday. It was this amazing, successful thing. Great movie. But we have not set that up for CP yet. There's not as much accounting in the accountant two though. It could be hard.

Blake Oliver: [01:10:02] No, it is pretty funny, but yeah, not as much. Not as much actual accounting. Although the the I think that my favorite was you know, because we did that movie theater like get together. We had 100 accountants watch it all together at a movie theater in Tempe. And uh, the we all laughed at the married filing separate joke. That was the key to unlocking the mystery was a tax return stapled to the wall, along with all the crime scene photos. Right. And it was like the filing status was actually how Ben Affleck figured it out. That was good. And then his. I also liked his his. Well, I'm not going to spoil it. Uh, no spoilers. Sorry. Apologies.

David Leary: [01:10:42] The one thing that I think if you go see the movie, you're not going to get. Or maybe you should try to create the same trend. Everybody waited in the theater until the credits rolled, and then every movie has CPAs that work on the movie.

Blake Oliver: [01:10:56] Well, we don't know if there's CPAs. They don't put their CPA in the credits. They were accountants.

David Leary: [01:11:01] Accountants. And it rolls up and it starts listing the accountants who worked on the movie, The Accountant, and everybody in the theater cheered and clapped. So do that. If you go see the theater, people might think you're weird, but hey.

Blake Oliver: [01:11:13] You'll be the only.

David Leary: [01:11:13] One present.

Blake Oliver: [01:11:14] In the theater anyways by the time those credits roll. All right, David, great to see you. See you again next week. Have a great one.

David Leary: [01:11:21] Bye bye.