Why Independence is Becoming a Strategic Choice for CPA Firms

Every few weeks brings another headline about a CPA firm selling to a private equity-backed platform. Research from the International Federation of Accountants found that fewer than 200 direct private equity investments in accounting firms have generated close to 900 follow-on transactions, a consolidation rate that has quadrupled since 2021 as those newly capitalized platforms roll up smaller firms beneath them.

The New Jersey Society of CPAs reports more than 50 notable PE transactions in the sector between 2020 and mid-2025 alone, bringing roughly $29 billion in outside capital into the industry.

Those numbers get most of the attention. Less discussed are the firms that looked at the same market and intentionally chose independence.

The Calculation Firm Leaders Are Making

A private equity investment can be the right call for plenty of firms. Sponsors bring capital for technology, recruiting, and infrastructure that a smaller firm might take years to build on its own, and many PE backed firms serve their clients well. But the model runs on a timeline.

Traditional private equity investments often operate within a defined investment horizon, frequently measured in years rather than decades. Citrin Cooperman’s move from New Mountain Capital to Blackstone in January 2025 illustrates how that investment cycle can play out. A change in ownership can bring new expectations, investment priorities and, in some cases, leadership changes—while client relationships may span decades.

Independent firms retain control over decisions involving pricing, investment, hiring, service offerings, and long-term strategy. Those decisions can be made by the partners who know the firm’s clients, people, and communities rather than being influenced by the return expectations of an outside owner.

What Independence Requires

Staying independent calls for active reinvestment. Firms that choose this path need more discipline about putting money into technology, AI, talent, new service lines and acquisitions, since there’s no outside investor making those calls for them. Independence works best paired with a real, ongoing willingness to evolve.

The same discipline applies to succession. Firms that want to remain independent have to prepare for succession years in advance. Without future leaders, appropriate financing and a workable partner-transition model, their strategic options can narrow considerably when senior partners are ready to retire.

Why Continuity Is Worth Protecting

This shows up across firms of every size. Client loyalty tends to build slowly, over years of calling the same person, someone who knows their history as well as their balance sheet.

That continuity is easy to overlook in a deal conversation focused on multiples and terms, but it’s often what clients value most. A family business working through a leadership transition, or a nonprofit board navigating a funding shift, is really paying for a relationship that stays consistent while everything else around them changes.

What Firm Leaders Should Be Asking

For firms weighing their ownership structure, access to capital is important, but it is only one part of the decision. The larger question is what kind of organization the partners want to build over the next ten or twenty years—and who they want controlling the decisions that shape it. A platform strategy makes sense for firms chasing scale in specific service lines or competing for large, complex engagements where deeper resources matter most. Staying independent makes sense for firms whose value is built on the relationship itself, where clients choose the firm because of who picks up the phone.

The right ownership structure depends on what a firm is trying to preserve, build, and deliver to its clients. Firm leaders should align that structure with why clients chose the firm in the first place, rather than defaulting to a sale because that is the direction the market is moving.

Where This Goes From Here

Consolidation in this profession shows no sign of slowing, but independence remains a viable strategic choice. The two models will keep existing side by side, serving different clients with different needs. Firm leaders benefit from making this choice with intention and a clear view of what they’re protecting and what they’re trading away, rather than treating a sale as inevitable simply because deal volume keeps climbing.

Either path can work. What matters is that firm leaders make the decision deliberately rather than letting the market make it for them.

===

About the Author: Jim Haefele, CPA, ABV, CVA, CFF, MAFF, is Leading Partner at hfco, an independent advisory and accounting firm serving privately held organizations, nonprofits, and family-owned businesses across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. He advises clients on tax strategy, business valuation, succession planning, and M&A transactions. Learn more at hfco.com.