US Audit Board Proposal Would Preserve Quality and Ease Burdens

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s proposed amendments to its quality control standard are a positive development for audit firms, arriving at an important time for the profession.

The number of PCAOB-registered firms has declined by roughly 21% between 2021 and 2025, while the population of smaller exchange-listed companies also has continued to shrink. Although the causes are complex, one reality is increasingly clear: Many firms have concluded that the costs, risks, and regulatory demands associated with serving public company clients outweigh the benefits. That trend should concern investors, regulators, and policymakers alike.

A healthy public company audit market depends on more than strong oversight. It requires a diverse,competitive pool of audit firms willing to serve companies of all sizes. Smaller issuers frequently rely on regional and mid-sized firms that understand their industries, growth trajectories, and local markets. When regulatory requirements become unnecessarily costly or difficult to implement, the burden falls disproportionately on these firms, reducing competition and limiting choices for public companies seeking audit services.

Against this backdrop, the PCAOB’s proposed amendments to QC 1000, A Firm’s System of Quality Control, represent a practical effort to strengthen audit quality while reducing implementation challenges that could further discourage participation in the public company audit market.

While the profession broadly supported QC 1000’s objective of strengthening quality management systems, implementation efforts revealed provisions that were unclear, operationally challenging, more costly than anticipated, or too prescriptive. The board’s proposed amendments address many of those concerns while preserving the standard’s fundamental purpose.

Several of the proposed changes align with recommendations the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants and other stakeholders have advanced. These include eliminating the design-only requirement for inactive firms, removing overly prescriptive provisions, reevaluating departures from international standards that increase compliance costs without improving audit quality, and eliminating the external quality control function requirement.

The proposal to eliminate the design-only requirement is crucial. Under the existing standard, firms that are registered with the PCAOB but aren’t currently performing issuer audits would still be required to design and maintain a PCAOB-compliant quality control system. That requirement imposes meaningful costs while providing limited practical benefit.

More importantly, it creates an incentive for inactive firms to surrender their PCAOB registration, further reducing the pool of firms available to enter or re-enter the public company audit market. Removing the requirement preserves optionality for firms and supports a more competitive marketplace.

The proposed elimination of the external quality control function requirement is equally significant. Firms have expressed concerns about the difficulty of identifying qualified individuals to serve in this role and the substantial costs associated with maintaining the function. This would have created additional auditor supply constraints. Because the requirement wasn’t included in the original proposal and has no direct counterpart in international quality management standards, its removal would eliminate a major implementation obstacle without diminishing audit quality.

Other proposed revisions move QC 1000 toward a more scalable, risk-based framework. These include greater flexibility in assigning quality control responsibilities, allowing firms to establish their own quality control reporting periods and simplifying reporting metrics. Such changes preserve accountability while allowing firms to exercise professional judgment in designing quality management systems that reflect their size, structure, and complexity.

That scalability matters. Requirements that may be manageable for the largest global networks can create disproportionate burdens for smaller firms. Effective regulation should focus on achieving quality outcomes, not imposing operational rigidity. The proposed amendments move QC 1000 closer to that balance.

The board’s efforts to improve alignment with international quality management standards and AICPA requirements are also welcome. Firms already devote substantial resources to complying with multiple regulatory frameworks.

While some differences are justified by the PCAOB’s unique statutory mandate and investor protection mission, unnecessary divergence increases compliance costs, complexity, and training burdens, especially for firms with limited resources. Greater harmonization allows firms to focus more attention on audit quality and less on reconciling competing requirements.

The PCAOB isn’t proposing to change the standard’s Dec. 15 effective date. That decision is reasonable. By addressing key implementation concerns while maintaining the existing timeline, the board provides firms with both regulatory certainty and a more practical path to compliance. Firms have been preparing for implementation since the Securities and Exchange Commission approved QC 1000 in 2024, and the proposed amendments should make those efforts more effective rather than requiring a reset.

The public can comment on the PCAOB proposal until July 9.

The board’s willingness to revisit portions of QC 1000 reflects sound regulatory stewardship. Strong quality control standards are essential to investor confidence and the integrity of US capital markets. But effective regulation also must be practical, scalable, and capable of being implemented without discouraging participation in the marketplace it seeks to oversee.

Strong audit quality and a healthy audit marketplace aren’t competing objectives. Investors benefit when quality standards are rigorous, but they also benefit when public companies have access to a diverse and competitive pool of audit firms. By reducing implementation burdens while preserving QC 1000’s core objectives, the PCAOB’s proposed amendments advance both goals and represent an important step toward strengthening the long-term health of the public company audit market.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Allison Henry is vice president of professional and technical standards at the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.