The leading national compendium of CPA firm practice management benchmarks.
CAN’T WAIT? GET THE INSTANT DOWNLOAD PDF EBOOK EDITION: Add the ebook version to your order and start benefiting immediately. Your full-length spiral bound report will be shipped by USPS Priority Mail.
$500.00 – $600.00
The CPA Industry’s Largest, Most Authoritative Annual Report
WHERE DOES YOUR FIRM RANK?
TOP 10 FINDINGS IN THIS YEAR’S SURVEY
1. Revenue growth of 7.8% is down from last year’s 8.1%.
2. Mergers continue to have a huge impact on revenue growth. This year, 26% of firms’ revenue increase was from mergers.
3. Income per partner was $430,000, 6% higher than the prior year, the HIGHEST increase in profitability since 2007.
4. The average age of partners and the percentage of partners over the age of 50 both saw decreases from prior years. As discussed in other parts of this survey, older partners are retiring and being replaced by younger partners. This trend will most definitely continue.
5. The percentage of female equity partners in multi-partner firms increased from 17% to 19%. All categories in firms >$2 million saw an increase while those firms <$2 million saw a decrease.
6. Those firms with the smallest attest practices (the lowest 25%) outperformed those with a higher percentage. The lowest 25% averaged $472,000 in IPP vs. $418,000 for the highest 25% and $411,000 for those in the middle 50%.
7. The common understanding that leverage and rates drive profitability really rings true this year! There are many parts of this year’s survey dedicated to this correlation.
8. The growth in IPP (6%) is finally catching up to the growth in fees (8%) for the first time since 2007.
9. This year we had 94 firms achieve more than $500,000 in IPP vs 79 firms last year…and this year we have a smaller population of firms in the survey due to all of the M&A activity!
10. While only 45% of firms >$20 million offer financial services (and that number decreases dramatically as firm size decreases), 90% of those that do not offer these services respond that it is not likely they will offer them in the next 12-months.
The Rosenberg MAP Survey is well-known and well-respected within the national CPA industry for its accuracy, thoroughness and high participation rate.
“THE barometer for CPA firm practice management.”
SEVEN REASONS ROSENBERG IS THE BEST
- Large number of participants — almost 400 firms.
- Results are reviewed by three CPAs for accuracy and validity.
- A customized benchmarking sheet for your firm.
- Row-by-row data for each firm – no other national survey gives you this.
- Comprehensive analysis and an executive overview of key findings.
- Key metrics broken down by size range, population range and geographic location.
- Dozens of special analyses and correlations – never seen in any other MAP survey.
- Firms, sorted by size:
— firms with annual fees >$20M
— firms with annual fees $10M-$20M
— firms with annual fees $2M - $10M
— firms with annual fees <$2M
— sole practitioners
- 100 benchmarks in all
- Four different city population ranges
- Four-year trend analysis
- Statistics seldom seen in other surveys
- Research showing which statistics correlate the most with profitability
- Partner compensation, partner buy-in and buy-out and partner retirement plans
- Statistics for CPA-operated financial services practices
- Executive summary written by Marc Rosenberg
Commentary, analysis, and forecasts by leading authorities, including:
Allen Koltin, Koltin Consulting
Jeff Pawlow, President, The Growth Partnership
Marc Rosenberg, The Rosenberg Associates
Jennifer Wilson, Convergence Coaching
Gary Adamson, Adamson Advisory
August Aquila, Aquila Global Advisors
Gale Crosley, Crosley Company
Chris Frederiksen, Panalitix
Angie Grissom, The Rainmaker Companies
Rita Keller, Keller Advisors
Roman Kepczyk, Xcentric
Art Kuesel, Kuesel Consulting
Tamera Loerzel, Convergence Coaching
Sarah Johnson Dobek, Inovautus
Terry Putney, Transition Advisors
Carl George, Carl George Advisory
28 KEY DATA POINTS FOR FIRMS OF ALL SIZES
- Age of the Partners
- Audit Practice Impact on Key Metrics
- Bigger Firms and Profitability
- Billing Rates of Partners within the Same Population Market
- Billing Rates: Do Firms With High Rates Have Lower Realization?
- Client Retention: Acquiring a Firm vs. Internal Retirements
- Dress Code
- Elite Firms Analysis
- Gender Mix and Percentage of Female Partners
- Financial Services
- Managing Partners’ Client Responsibilities
- New Partner Buy-In
- New Partner Compensation
- Non-Equity Partner Position: A Growing Trend
- Partner Agreements
- Partner Charge Hours and Income per Partner
- Partner Compensation Systems
- Partner Retirement/Buyout
- Partner Retirement Plans: Penalty if clients leave the firm
- Partner Retirement Plans: How many firms are making goodwill based payments?
- Partner Retirement: Mandatory retirement
- Profitability Measurement
- Small Cities and Profitability
- Staff Billable Hours
- Staff to Partner Ratio Correlated to Income Per Partner
- States: Profitability and Growth for Certain States
- Tax Season Impact on Staff Billable Hours
- The Statistics that Correlate Most with Firm Profitability
Demographics of Survey Participants
There were 347 firms that participated in this year’s survey:
• 38 firms with annual net fees in excess of $20 million.
• 64 firms with annual net fees of $10–20 million.
• 207 firms with annual net fees of $2–10 million.
• 19 firms with annual net fees under $2 million.
• 19 firms were sole proprietors.
• 80% of the firms in the 2017 survey also participated in 2016.
In terms of size of market (metropolitan population of the county in which the firm resides, plus all collar counties):
• 181 firms were from very large cities with population in excess of two million such as Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc.
• 51 firms were from other large cities with populations between one and two million.
• 74 firms were from markets ranging in population between 250,000 and one million.
• 41 firms were from markets of under 250,000.
In terms of geographic dispersion:
• 105 firms were from Midwestern states (Great Lakes, Dakotas down to Kansas).
• 75 firms were from Northeastern states (New England down to Pennsylvania).
• 109 firms were from Southern states (Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland down to Florida, as
far west as Oklahoma and Texas).
• 58 firms were from Western states (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana and all states west).