Payrolls fell by 23,000 in July, and the twelve-month average is down to 34,000 a month. On the face of it, an employer’s market.

Not for you. Unemployment among accounting professionals is running between 1% and 2% — which is another way of saying that nearly every skilled accountant in the labor market already has a job. Robert Half finds 61% of finance and accounting hiring managers saying skilled professionals are harder to find than a year ago, and 74% planning to increase permanent headcount in the second half of this year. Roles requiring a CPA take an average of 73 days to fill, 41% longer than comparable roles without the credential.

The broad labor market and the finance labor market are moving in opposite directions, and only one of them is on your org chart.

That is the near-term problem. The longer one is underneath it, and it is the reason this does not fix itself when the cycle turns.

Candidates sitting the CPA exam are down more than 30% since 2016. Around 55,000 accounting degrees are awarded a year against roughly 120,000 projected annual openings. Approximately three quarters of AICPA members had reached retirement age by 2020.

Those numbers describe a supply problem, and supply problems usually resolve. Enrollment is in fact recovering — accounting enrollment at four-year institutions rose 8.9% this spring, a third consecutive year of growth. States are opening alternative licensure pathways that drop the 150-hour requirement in favor of structured experience.

But look at what is actually scarce. It is not graduates. It is the person with eight years behind them who can look at a consolidation and tell you which number is wrong before checking. That person cannot be produced by enrollment growth, alternative pathways, or salary. They can only be produced by time, and by a particular kind of time.

That is why the shortage bites at the experienced end and why it will keep biting. Rebuilding a pipeline takes a decade, because the pipeline is people spending a decade in it.

Reconciliations. Tie-outs. Rolling forward supporting schedules. Preparing the financial statements and the disclosures that go with them. Chasing a variance nobody had explained, then writing the analysis of why it moved. Drafting the management commentary somebody more senior would take apart.

Nobody defended that work as intellectually rich, and most of it was tedious by design. But it was not only output. It was how a person developed a feel for what a wrong number looks like — the sense that a balance is off before you can articulate why, the instinct that a margin moved for a reason nobody has mentioned yet. That judgment is not taught in a classroom and it does not arrive with a credential. It accretes from having done the work enough times to recognize when something does not fit.

It is also, almost exactly, the list of tasks that AI now handles well.

That is not a complaint about the technology. Automating reconciliations is straightforwardly good — it is faster, cheaper and less error-prone than a tired twenty-four-year-old at eleven at night, and no finance function should be doing it by hand out of nostalgia. The work should be automated.

The question is what replaces it as the mechanism that turns a graduate into someone you would trust with a close.

Every individual decision here is correct.

Automating the reconciliation is correct. Hiring one fewer staff accountant because the software does the work is correct. Recruiting an experienced hire rather than growing one, when you need the capability this quarter and not in six years, is correct.

Do all of that across an entire profession for a decade and there are no experienced hires to recruit, because nobody trained any. The shortage you are managing around today is the accumulated result of rational decisions made by finance leaders who each had a good reason.

There is a second-order version of it too. Robert Half found 63% of hiring managers reporting significant project delays from skills shortages, and 48% cancelling projects outright. Deploying automation is a project like any other, and it needs exactly the scarce, capable people it is meant to make less necessary. The constraint on automating the finance function is the same constraint automation was supposed to relieve.

The honest answer is that nobody has solved this, and any newsletter telling you otherwise is selling something. But the shape of the response is visible.

The pyramid is becoming a diamond. Fewer entry-level seats, more capacity in the middle, and the same or greater need at the top. If your headcount plan still assumes a wide base of juniors feeding upward, it is describing a structure that is disappearing.

Contract and interim capacity is filling the gap, deliberately. Robert Half found 63% of finance and accounting leaders planning to increase contract or temporary hiring through the end of this year. That is a rational response to a 73-day fill cycle, and it is also how a function loses its ability to develop anyone — contractors do not build your bench.

The credential requirement is worth re-examining. Each additional credential adds eight to twelve days to a search. Some of those requirements are load-bearing and some are habit. Distinguishing between what a hire must have on day one and what can be developed is not lowering the bar; it is refusing to let the bar be set by a job description written in 2019.

Our take: if the first three years are automated, the development they used to deliver has to be manufactured deliberately, because it will not happen as a by-product any more. That means rotation, exposure to the close rather than a corner of it, sitting juniors alongside the specialists you bring in, and putting people in front of problems slightly beyond them. It is more expensive than the old model, which trained people by accident. The alternative is competing for senior talent in 2036 against every other finance function that also stopped making any.

Get revenue agents, workflows, and automations across every stage of your motion. Access customer data in real time through Attio's web app, MCP, API, and SDK.

Then Ask Attio anything about your business and get instant answers.

It's the CRM that runs the work behind every win.

Try Attio Now

Last week we asked whether your general ledger could produce employee compensation by income statement caption, without a manual allocation.

Forty-eight of you answered, and the split was almost exactly even. Twenty said yes, it is already tagged that way. Twenty said no — thirteen would need a spreadsheet, seven were not sure where to start. Eight said not applicable.

An even split on a January deadline is not a comfortable result. It means roughly half of the finance functions who read this have a systems project between now and the end of the year and, at the time of reading, had not started it.

The disclosure is still not due until 2028. The data still has to exist from the first of January.

Four things every CFO needs to know this week.

· The tariff money is landing, and it is not always yours. Customs and Border Protection has been processing IEEPA refunds through its phased CAPE system since April, and the cash is now showing up in filings — FIGS booked $20.5 million in accepted Phase I claims, Energizer recorded a $64 million benefit straight into cost of goods sold. But Mettler-Toledo, claiming roughly $53 million, told investors it expects to refund a significant portion to its own customers and will pursue its suppliers in turn. Before you spend it, read the pass-through clauses. Who paid the tariff economically and who is the importer of record are frequently not the same party.

· Same facts, three accounting answers. The refunds are gain contingencies, and companies are treating them very differently. FIGS judged recovery probable and reasonably estimable once CBP accepted its claims, and recognized. Energizer recognized on the strength of the court rulings establishing its legal right. Mettler-Toledo has recognized nothing, citing uncertainty over appeals and final liquidation amounts. All three are defensible under ASC 450-30, which is rather the point — if your auditors have not yet asked which position you are taking, they will.

· Finance is not cutting. It is quietly not hiring. Challenger data shows financial firms announced 18,626 job cuts through July, down 31% from the same period last year — so the sector is not shedding staff. Yet payrolls across financial activities and information have fallen by an average of 28,000 a month this year. Ryan Nunn of the Yale Budget Lab reads it as AI showing up first through slower hiring and attrition rather than layoffs. That is a quieter mechanism than a redundancy programme, and a harder one to notice: nobody decides to stop developing people. The role simply does not get backfilled.

· The rate path, and a speech on Friday. Futures now put the odds of a September move at 40%, down from 82% in mid-July and 67% at the end of that month. A hold is the base case. But Kevin Warsh delivers his first Jackson Hole keynote as Chair on Friday morning, three weeks before the September 16 decision, and this is a Fed that has stopped telegraphing between meetings — which makes a set-piece speech the richest scheduled signal left before the vote. Three regional presidents dissented in favor of a hike in July. If Warsh leans toward them on Friday, 40% will not be the number on Monday.

1. Who did the work your juniors are not doing? List what has come out of the entry-level workload in the last three years — automated, outsourced, or simply stopped. Then ask what capability each of those tasks used to build, and whether anything has replaced it. This is a ten-minute exercise and most finance functions have never done it.

2. Could your team close without your two most experienced people? Not comfortably — at all. If the answer is no, you have a concentration risk that a 73-day fill cycle turns into a real problem the week one of them resigns.

3. What is your actual time-to-competence? How long does a new hire take to run a piece of the close unsupervised? If that number has been getting longer, it is worth knowing why, and whether it is because the intermediate steps that used to build the skill are gone.

4. Are your credential requirements load-bearing? Go through your open roles and mark each requirement as must-have-on-day-one or could-be-developed. Every credential you require adds roughly eight to twelve days to the search. Some of that is worth paying. Some of it is a job description nobody has revisited.

5. What are you doing with the interim capacity you are already buying? If you are using contractors or fractional specialists — and most finance functions now are — decide whether your own people are working alongside them or simply handing over. The same spend either builds your bench or bypasses it, and the difference is a scheduling decision.

SPONSOR THIS NEWSLETTER

Your name, in front of the CFOs and senior finance leaders who read The CFO Desk every Tuesday. The primary slot is available for Q4. Write to [email protected].

The first three years of a finance career were never the point. They were the toll you paid to get to the part where judgment mattered.

Nobody misses the reconciliations. The question is whether anything is being built in their place, or whether we have quietly decided that experienced accountants will keep appearing from somewhere.

One question before you go: in ten years, where will your senior finance talent come from?

One click. And if you have a view on why, reply — we read everything.

The Editors hold no position in any company mentioned.

— The CFO Desk
[email protected] · thecfodesk.com
CAPITAL · FINANCE · LEADERSHIP