kpmg research

The IFRS Foundation is a not-for-profit, public interest organisation established to develop high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted accounting and sustainability disclosure standards.

Our Standards are developed by our two standard-setting boards, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). 

About the IFRS Foundation

Ifrs foundation governance, stay updated.

IFRS Accounting Standards are developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The IASB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Accounting Standards are, in effect, a global accounting language—companies in more than 140 jurisdictions are required to use them when reporting on their financial health. The IASB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Accounting

Standards and frameworks, using the standards, project work, products and services.

IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Sustainability Standards are developed to enhance investor-company dialogue so that investors receive decision-useful, globally comparable sustainability-related disclosures that meet their information needs. The ISSB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Sustainability

Education, membership and licensing, round 8 of iaaer-kpmg research grants open to inform iasb standard-setting process.

You need to Sign in to use this feature

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has announced the International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER) and KPMG’s call for proposals for the eighth round of their research programme Informing the IASB Standard-setting Process .

Research about the IASB’s future projects on intangible assets and the statement of cash flows is being sought. These projects have been added to the IASB’s future work plan as an outcome from the Third Agenda Consultation, which informed the IASB’s key priorities for the next five years. Proposals relating to any project on the IASB’s work plan or research project pipeline are also welcome.

The IAAER-KPMG research programme promotes and supports research directed at developing theory and evidence to inform the IASB’s decision process for any current agenda item.

The submission deadline for proposals is 28 February 2023 ; read more details about submitting a proposal here .

The seventh round of grants has been completed. Based on the papers they submitted, academics from Sweden and the USA were awarded grants for the following projects on the IASB's workplan:

Extractive Activities

• 'Consequences of Financial Statement Comparability in Extractive Industries Pre- and Post IFRS Adoption'. Researchers: Niclas Hellman (Stockholm School of Economics), Mariya Ivanova (Stockholm School of Economics) and Zeping Pan ( Stockholm School of Economics).

Primary Financial Statements

• 'Income Statement Presentation'. Researchers: Elaine Henry (Stevens Institute of Technology) and Steve Yang (Stevens Institute of Technology).
• 'Are Non-GAAP Measures Running Amok? Evidence on the Proliferation of Non-GAAP Adjustments and the Transparency of the Related Disclosures'. Researchers: Denise Jones (College of William and Mary) and Kimberly Smith (College of William and Mary).

Dynamic Risk Management

• 'Risk Management Disclosures: The Impact of Management Intent and Transparency on Investors’ Judgments'. Researchers: Roshan Sinha (Kelly School of Business, Indiana University) and Donald Young (Kelly School of Business, Indiana University).

Related information

Resources for academics

Followable tags

Your action was not processed, please try again later

Related news

Your privacy.

IFRS Foundation cookies

We use cookies on ifrs.org to ensure the best user experience possible. For example, cookies allow us to manage registrations, meaning you can watch meetings and submit comment letters. Cookies that tell us how often certain content is accessed help us create better, more informative content for users.

We do not use cookies for advertising, and do not pass any individual data to third parties.

Some cookies are essential to the functioning of the site. Other cookies are optional. If you accept all cookies now you can always revisit your choice on our  privacy policy  page.

Cookie preferences

Essential cookies, always active.

Essential cookies are required for the website to function, and therefore cannot be switched off. They include managing registrations.

Analytics cookies

We use analytics cookies to generate aggregated information about the usage of our website. This helps guide our content strategy to provide better, more informative content for our users. It also helps us ensure that the website is functioning correctly and that it is available as widely as possible. None of this information can be tracked to individual users.

Preference cookies

Preference cookies allow us to offer additional functionality to improve the user experience on the site. Examples include choosing to stay logged in for longer than one session, or following specific content.

Share this page

Sorry, there are no results matching your search.

• Corporate Finance
• Transactions

Professional Services Industry Update Q4 2023

Read more about M&A activity and trends in this sector

Professional Services Industry Update

Sector Spotlight: HR Staffing & Professional Services

Professional Services Overview

Global professional services industry participants include providers of consulting services, on-shore and off-shore outsourced solutions, data and information services, human capital management and workforce solutions, and risk and compliance services. Key public industry players in each sub-sector are categorized as follows:

HR Staffing & Professional Services: Indexed Stock Performance

Recently reported HR Staffing & Professional Services businesses experienced mixed performance on an earning per share (EPS) and revenue per Q3 2023 / Q2 2024

We hope you find this information valuable, and as always, feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss in further detail. To read the full report, download the PDF below.

1. Normalized EPS that excludes the effects of exceptional items to standardize the metric across the peer group

2. Select HR Staffing & Professional Services companies include those defined in the table above

*: Resources Connection and Korn Ferry reported Q2 2024 Earnings

Download the document:

Explore more.

Business services

KPMG Corporate Finance LLC's investment bankers have extensive Business Services transaction and industry experience, which enables them to understand the industry-specific issues and challenges facing our clients.

Professional Services Sector Update - Spring 2023

Read more about M&A trends and activity in this sector

Learn about the latest trends in mergers and acquisitions with KPMG Corporate Finance LLC.

Meet our team

In today’s market, you need an advisor with objective insight at every step of the transaction process. We work with you throughout the full deal cycle to create value and successfully execute your deal strategy.

Get the latest updates to KPMG Corporate Finance LLC industry insights

Subscribe to kpmg corporate finance llc industry insights, register to receive timely updates, select your industry preference: minimum of 1 is required..

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

More From Forbes

Kpmg global study confirms trusting ai remains a major employee confidence gap.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Does Mankind Trust AI? Not Yet this research validates.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to invent new products and services, enhance productivity, improve decision making and reduce costs, including automating administrative tasks and improving cyber security.

However, integrating AI into the everyday workplace still creates challenges, especially without a clear policy and communication process to ensure employees trust the technology methods, approaches, and societal reasons for deploying the new practices and solutions.

AI poses unique challenges in employee minds, including the big question – Can they trust the technology?

Considerations in strategic change management, and internal/ external policy alignments are important in terms of how employees will view the risks and benefits of AI. It is critical that leadership communicates what is expected for AI to be trusted and puts in place clear quality and risk management practices to increase employee trust.

Shedding light on these important questions, KPMG and The University of Queensland recently released a global study of over 17,000 people in 17 countries (including: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America). These countries are leaders in AI activity and readiness within each global region. Unfortunately this report left out AI innovators like Vietnam that are making major advancements, especially with companies like FPT Software in Vietnam investing in major AI enablements.

The survey asked respondents about trust and attitudes towards AI systems in general, as well as AI use in the context of four domains where AI is rapidly being deployed and likely to impact many people: in healthcare, public safety and security, human resources, and consumer recommender applications.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

The major finding is that over 50% of the sample population confirmed they did not trust AI at work.

Hence only one in two employees are willing to trust AI at work. Employee attitudes depends on their role, what country they live in, and what the AI is used for. However, people across the globe are nearly unanimous in their expectations of what needs to be in place for AI to be trusted which is a very positive sign, especially for aligning international standards.

Insights were provided in key areas, including: who is trusted to develop, use, and govern AI, the perceived benefits and risks of AI use, community expectations of the development, regulation, and governance of AI, and how organizations can support trust in their AI use.

The major research also provided many insights on how people feel about the use of AI at work, public understanding and awareness of AI, the key drivers of trust in AI systems, and how trust and attitudes to AI have changed over time.

The value of this research report insights is that it helps validate the importance of establishing clear AI strategy, operational practices, policy formulation, and international standards etc.

The research confirmed there was less confidence in AI in western countries versus in Brazil, India, China, South Africa. Not a surprise the research found hat the younger generations and those who are university educated and in senior management roles are more confident in the value / embracing Ai and are more supportive of experimentation and recognizing the economic implications of not pursuing AI but underscore the importance of applying AI in responsible and ethical ways.

Some of the key findings are summarized below.

To what extent do people trust AI systems?

Three out of five people (61%) are either ambivalent or unwilling to trust AI. However, trust and acceptance depend on the AI application. For example, AI use in healthcare is more trusted than AI use for Human Resource purposes. People tend to have faith in the capability and helpfulness of AI systems, but are more sceptical of their safety, security, and fairness. Many people feel ambivalent about the use of AI, reporting optimism and excitement, coupled with fear and worry.

How do people perceive the benefits and risks of AI?

Most people (85%) believe AI will deliver a range of benefits, but only half believe the benefits of AI outweigh the risks. Three out of four people (73%) are concerned about the risks associated with AI, with cyber security rated as the top risk globally. Other risks of concern to the majority include: loss of privacy, manipulation and harmful use, job loss and deskilling (especially in India and South Africa), system failure (particularly in Japan), erosion of human rights, inaccurate outcomes and bias.

Who is trusted to develop, use, and govern AI?

People have the most confidence in their national universities, research institutions and defence organizations to develop, use and govern AI in the best interests of the public (76-82%). People have the least confidence in governments and commercial organizations, with a third reporting low or no confidence in these entities to develop, use or govern AI. This is problematic given the increasing use of AI by government and business.

What do people expect of AI management, governance, and regulation?

There is strong global endorsement for the principles of trustworthy AI originally: 97% of people globally view these principles and the practices that underpin them as important for trust. These principles and practices provide a blueprint to organizations on what is required to secure trust in their use of AI. Most people (71%) believe AI regulation is necessary, with a majority believing this to be the case in all countries except India. People expect some form of external, independent oversight, yet only 39% believe current governance, regulations and laws are sufficient to protect people and make AI use safe.

How do people feel about AI at work?

Most people (55%) are comfortable with the use of AI at work to augment and automate tasks and inform managerial decision-making, as long as it is not used for human resource and people management purposes. People actually prefer AI involvement to sole human decision-making, but they want humans to retain control. Except in China and India, most people believe AI will remove more jobs than it creates.

How well do people understand AI?

Most people (82%) have heard of AI, yet about half (49%) are unclear about how and when it is being used. However, most (82%) want to learn more. What’s more, 68% of people report using common AI applications, but 41% are unaware AI is a key component in those applications.

What are the key drivers of trust?

The research report highlighted that trust is central to the acceptance of AI and highlighted four pathways to strengthen public trust in AI:

1. An institutional pathway consisting of safeguards, regulations, and laws to make AI use safe, and confidence in government and commercial organiations to develop, use and govern AI.

2. A motivational pathway reflecting the perceived benefits of AI use.

3. An uncertainty reduction pathway reflecting the need to address concerns and risks associated with AI.

4. A knowledge pathway reflecting people’s understanding of AI use and efficacy in using digital technologies.

Of these drivers, the institutional pathway has the strongest influence on trust, followed by the motivational pathway. These pathways hold for all countries surveyed.

How have attitudes changed over time?

The research also examined how attitudes towards AI have changed since 2020 in Australia, the UK, USA, Canada, and Germany. Trust in AI, as well as awareness of AI and its use in common applications, increased in each of these countries. However, there has been no change in the perceived adequacy of regulations, laws and safeguards to protect people from the risks of AI, nor in people’s confidence in entities to develop, use and govern AI

People have more faith in the ability of AI systems to produce reliable output and provide helpful services, than the safety, security and fairness of these systems, and the extent to which they uphold privacy rights.

However, trust is contextual and depends on the AI’s purpose, most people are comfortable with the use of AI at work to augment and automate tasks and help employees, but they are less comfortable when AI is used for human resources, performance management, or monitoring purposes.

Most employees view AI use in managerial decision-making as acceptable, and actually prefer AI involvement to sole human decision-making. However, the preferred option is to have humans retain more control than the AI system, or at least the same amount.

While nearly half of the people surveyed believe AI will enhance their competence and autonomy at work, less than one in three (29%) believe AI will create more jobs than it will eliminate.

This reflects a prominent fear: 77% of people report feeling concerned about job loss, and 73% say they are concerned about losing important skills due to AI.

However, managers are more likely to believe that AI will create jobs and are less concerned about its risks than other occupations. This reflects a broader trend of managers being more comfortable, trusting and supportive of AI use at work than other employee groups.

Given managers are typically the drivers of AI adoption at work, these differing views may cause tensions in organizations implementing AI tools.

In addition, younger generations and those with a university education are also more trusting and comfortable with AI, and more likely to use it in their work. Over time this may escalate divisions in employment.

There are also important differences among countries in our findings. For example, people in western countries are among the least trusting of AI use at work, whereas those in emerging economies: (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) are more trusting and comfortable. This difference partially reflects the fact a minority of people in western countries believe the benefits of AI outweigh the risks, in contrast to the large majority of people in emerging economies.

Making AI Trustworthy is a Business Imperative for Board Directors and C-Suite Leaders

The good news is that the research findings show people are united on the principles and practices they expect to be in place in order to trust AI .

On average, 97% of people report that each of these are important for their trust in AI. People also stated that they would trust AI more when oversight tools are in place, such as monitoring the AI for accuracy and reliability, AI “codes of conduct”, independent AI ethical review boards, and adherence to international AI standards.

The strong endorsement for the trustworthy AI principles and practices across all countries provides a blueprint for how organizations can design, use and govern AI in a way that advances and secures trust in AI.

In conclusion, corporate purpose needs to be front and center in building AI Trust and board directors and C- suite leaders have a duty of care responsibility to ensure Trusted AI is a core competency in an increasingly more digitally smart world.

Research Sources:

Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., Curtis, C., Pool, J., & Akbari, A. (2023). Trust in Artificial Intelligence: A Global Study. The University of Queensland and KPMG Australia. 10.14264/00d3c94

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

How to report on the SDGs

This report sets the bar for all creators of thought leadership. From the start, it is obvious who this is relevant to and why they would want to read on. The authors and the analysis they provide are very credible and deliver fresh insights. Practical advice from organisations making progress on SDG reporting, combined with simple and achievable recommendations from the authors, provide a compelling picture of achievable actions and realisable results.

• Read more about How to report on the SDGs
• Add new comment

The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting

KPMG’s analysis of reports, combined with expert interviews, enables the authors to deliver fresh and convincing insights. The first few pages provide a good sense of what the report is about and the depth and breadth of the research undertaken, as well as the extensive experience of the lead authors. Including quotes from a range of experts throughout the report alongside their photos helps to make the content engaging.

• Read more about The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting

Making memories

KPMG frames its annual analysis of customer champions by challenging readers to determine where they must simply be good enough and where they need to excel. The clear structure and engaging tone makes the report easy to read and conveys a helpfulness and warmth that encourages further interaction. And stories are used throughout—stories that engage the reader in the moment and are likely to be remembered long after the report is read.

• Read more about Making memories

What Works: The trillion dollar quest

This publication, with the goal of explaining how the world’s best healthcare organisations develop managers and leaders, is structured around six rules, each of which is illustrated by a case study and supported by helpful “symptoms of failure” and “key actions for boards”.

• Read more about What Works: The trillion dollar quest

KPMG 2015 H2

With an all-time high in terms of average score, KPMG retains its eighth-place ranking. And the firm also makes it into the top-five list for both appeal—where we’ve seen an improvement in design, structure and writing style—and resilience. The challenge for KPMG is cutting out or improving low-scoring content (10% of this sample scored less than 8.0) and pushing more into the top band (another 10% scored at least 12.0).

• Read more about KPMG 2015 H2

KPMG 2013 H2

It would be easy to dismiss the alarming inconsistency of the quality of KPMG’s thought leadership by attributing it to sheer volume of material the firm publishes. That may, indeed, be true, but EY publishes significantly more and manages to maintain an impressive degree white space of consistency by comparison. So what’s going on here? It’s hard to be sure, but we suspect a chronic inability to centralise thought leadership within the firm is leading to a lack of coordination

• Read more about KPMG 2013 H2

KPMG 2014 H1

KPMG shares the ‘high variability’ box with its Big Four compatriot EY. We know, however, that work is underway at KPMG to improve quality across the board, so hopefully this leap up our ranking is indicative of a trend rather than just a lucky sample choice. When a firm’s output is variable, relative scores against the four criteria tend to change from review to review based on the random sample chosen. This time, the firm’s strongest area is differentiation; its weakest resilience. KPMG is clearly

• Read more about KPMG 2014 H1

KPMG 2015 H1

At its best, KPMG is producing reports such as Paths to population health . Structured around eight questions (eg Is there a shared understanding for the journey?), KPMG introduces the authors and their credentials up front; explains clearly what organisations need to do; provides engaging case studies to bring the material to life; and offers a maturity matrix encouraging readers to benchmark their own efforts.

• Read more about KPMG 2015 H1

How to compete and win in a world of biosimilars

KPMG has selected a highly topical subject and tackles the issue head on with a pragmatic ‘how to’ approach. The firm succeeds in conveying a realistic sense of urgency, challenging those who are assuming that the impact of biosimilars on the US market will be very gradual.

• Read more about How to compete and win in a world of biosimilars

KPMG 2014 H2

KPMG continues its steady climb up our rankings table. We’re seeing less text and more attractively presented reports, greater use of internal and external experts, and more of a focus on the ‘so what’ for the reader. An example of this approach in action is Creating new value with patients, carers and communities. A well-written introduction, a concise easy-to-follow structure, real-life examples, and information about internal and external experts are likely to encourage readers to think positively about the firm.

• Read more about KPMG 2014 H2

© 2009 - 2024 Source Information Services Ltd | Registration No: 06439935 Terms and conditions of use | Privacy policy

• Global news

KPMG | Research

• Global fintech investments fell by $75 billion last year, KPMG says Global investments in the fintech sector fell by more than 30% last year from 2021’s record high levels, according to research by KPMG. 26 April 2023
• KPMG global revenues up by 14% to $35 billion A booming advisory division has seen KPMG achieve global revenues of $35 billion over its past financial year. 23 December 2022
• Investments in fintech start-ups and scale-ups return to $200+ billion Investments in fintechs have risen sharply over the past year despite the ongoing corona pandemic. 16 February 2022
• 6 charts on deals and investments in the global fintech market 2021 has seen an incredibly strong start to the year for the global fintech market, with very robust investment across venture capital, private equity and corporate investments. 02 September 2021
• The top 20 technology sourcing trends of 2021 Global consulting giant KPMG has released its annual view on the top technology sourcing trends. 17 March 2021
• KPMG and PwC predict Romania's M&A market to pick up Big Four firms KPMG and PwC have both released their forecast for Romania’s mergers & acquisitions (M&A) market in 2021, and their findings are largely in sync. 17 February 2021
• Period of major change drives up venture capital investments The current economic climate is not yet holding back venture capitalists’ desire to spend their money. Both globally and in Europe, investments in startups increased over the past three months. 28 October 2020
• Covid-19 has made people & talent the top risk, say CEOs The confidence of CEOs in growth has plummeted globally as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. 31 August 2020
• Venture capital investments in European start-ups nosedives The number of deals closed by venture capitalists in Europe has declined to its lowest point in seven years, according to KPMG. The reason: how could it be otherwise, the Covid-19 crisis. 05 August 2020
• A smoking milestone: EU cigarette consumption below 500 billion Marking a milestone for the European smoking world, the number of cigarettes consumed fell below the 500 billion mark last year for the first time in decades, causing a similar dip in production. 04 August 2020
• Cybersecurity teams need to catch up in public cloud space Following a survey of 750 respondents cross North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, KPMG and Oracle have concluded that cloud strategies across the globe are distinctly lacking an adequate security f 01 July 2020
• List of the 30 richest football clubs in Europe Europe’s 30 richest football clubs are only getting richer, according to a new analysis of enterprise value by Big Four accounting and advisory firm KPMG. 01 June 2020
• Top football leagues take €4 billion hit from Coronavirus The impact of the coronavirus on Europe’s national football competitions are huge. 20 March 2020
• Dutch M&A activity grows for sixth consecutive year The number of large and midsized mergers and acquisitions in the Netherlands has increased for the sixth year in a row. 10 March 2020
• German start-ups enjoy record breaking €6.2 billion windfall German start-ups are facing boom times. 03 February 2020
• Agile working is becoming a strategic transformation priority Agile working is rapidly gaining ground globally. 18 November 2019
• Record levels of capital are flowing to European start-ups The value of venture capital financing injected by strategics and financial investors into European start-ups and scale-ups has reached its highest level ever. 15 October 2019
• Real Madrid and Manchester United lead football's rich list As the domestic season of Europe’s elite leagues quickly approaches kick-off, Manchester United has been bumped from the top of football’s rich list. 02 August 2019
• Europe best prepared for autonomous driving, Netherlands leads Europe is across the board the best prepared for the rapid rise of autonomous vehicles, according to an analysis by KPMG. 24 April 2019
• Global FinTech investment more than doubled to $112 billion Investments in FinTech’s have reached a new record last year. A whopping $112 billion was pumped into innovative companies that pursue technological innovation in the financial sector. 21 February 2019
• Investors pumping more funds into a smaller number of startups The sums of money flowing from venture investors into startups has reached its highest point in history. Last year, a staggering $255 billion was pumped into startups. 12 February 2019
• Boom times for Big Four accounting and consulting firms in Germany A boom in advisory work has driven the business of the world’s largest professional services firms in Germany to record levels. 15 January 2019
• Startups attract record level of funding from venture capitalists Investments in startups reached a record level in the second quarter of this year. 17 July 2018
• Innovation in the renewables sector is crucial to meet Paris targets The world faces considerable barriers to keeping within the Paris Climate Accord upper limit of a 2.0 C rise in temperature over this century. 12 July 2018
• Global CEOs are upbeat about growth but weary of cyber risks CEOs across the globe remain relatively optimistic about business in the near future, with the majority predicting growth of at least 2% for the year ahead, and even more for the next three-year peri 02 July 2018
• Why The Netherlands is the globe's top location for self-driving cars The Netherlands is according to international research the country in the best position to adopt self-driving cars. 06 June 2018
• CEOs prepared to take ownership for driving digital transformation In today’s rapidly evolving landscape, disruption is touted as the largest risk to businesses globally. 01 June 2018
• Deals and M&A in the Netherlands reaches highest point in decade The number of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the Netherlands is at its highest point in ten years, according to research by KPMG. 12 April 2018
• News archive
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Consulting.us
• Consulting.ca
• Consultancy.uk
• Consultancy.in
• Consultancy.nl
• Consultancy.co.za
• Consultancy.eu
• Consultancy.asia
• Consultancy-me.com
• Consultancy.lat
• Consultancy.africa
• Consultancy.com.au

Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

KPMG Gibraltar eSummit 2024 - Sarah Gardner speech

08 July 2024 Speech by Sarah Gardner

Please note: This is the speech as drafted and may slightly differ from the delivered version.

Thank you for that introduction and thank you everyone for being here today. I’d also like to pass on Andrew’s apologies for not being able to make this week’s event. Since this event was announced and we had agreed to attend, a General Election has been called in the UK, so we are now in the pre-election period, which does mean I have needed to change the focus of my speech to reflect that. I will touch on some of the things we have already announced and are implementing but it will be for the next Government, whoever that is, to lay out their policy agenda when they take office, without people like me having recently commented on what parts of policy or regulation may or may not look like. As such, I won’t be talking further about the 2023 White Paper, that laid out various reforms to gambling regulation in Great Britain.

So what will I be talking about today? Well, as you may have heard myself and our CEO, Andrew Rhodes, as well as others say before, the Gambling Commission has a lot to be getting on with and a number of projects that deserve attention outside of the work to implement the 2023 White Paper. I also want to take the opportunity to reflect a little on what we see emerging in the industry and what regulators may need to turn their attention to, or at least what we might need to think about.

The world is a changing place but the British jurisdiction remains important for a number of reasons. We are, of course, still the largest regulated online jurisdiction in the world and quite possibly one of the most liberalised. As such, many of the things that happen in the industry happen in Great Britain first. We do now see many new regulators emerging in economies addressing the growth they will have seen in online gambling in particular during the pandemic or where those nations want to regularise and regulate gambling for the first time, or to update their approach to reflect political, social and consumer behaviour changes.

Core to so much of what we do is the evidence base we have and need. There is sometimes much sentiment and emotion involved in the industry people in this room work in, regulate or supply services to, and that is not unimportant, but ultimately we need to be guided by the evidence. Related to that, I’ll touch on the impact that our Compliance and Enforcement work has had and what that means for how we can engage with the industry now and in the future. So I will also spend some time discussing how we are developing the better statistics and evidence that will allow us to make better decisions that lead to better outcomes in the future as well. All of this work is of course tied together by the new Corporate Strategy we published in April. But back to the here and now. What does the gambling sector look like in Great Britain today?

Last year, the British market, for the first time went through the £15 billion mark in terms of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY): £15.1 billion for the financial year April 2022 to March 2023. But what about participation?

Earlier today we have released Wave 2 findings from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), based on 5,000 responses collected between November 2023 and February 2024.

This release focuses on participation in gambling during this time, 48 percent of respondents aged 18 years and over had gambled in the past 4 weeks (about the same proportion who told us they have visited pubs/bars or clubs in the past 4 weeks), with lotteries and scratchcards being the most popular activities that people take part in (36 percent and 13 percent respectively).

We found that most respondents who had gambled in the past 12 months were motivated to gamble for ‘the chance of winning big money’ and ‘because it’s fun’, and overall, when asked how they felt about gambling respondents said they neither loved it nor hated it.

We know that 21 percent of respondents have only taken part in lottery draws in the past four weeks (either National Lottery or Charity Lotteries), whereas 27 percent are taking part in other types of gambling.

For respondents aged 45 to 74 years old, participation in lottery draws makes up a significant part of their gambling.

This is the second release from the GSGB, as we’ve already started calling it, following the Wave 1 findings which were published in February 2024. In July we’ll also be publishing the first annual report for the GSGB, this will include more detail about the impact of gambling alongside the findings on the types of activities that people are playing.

There is a natural interest in how the evidence base we, and others, rely on to underpin our regulatory work and I think that’s important. Those of you who are active in the British jurisdiction or follow it closely, you will know there has been plenty of comment on the new methodology for the GSGB. We commissioned and then published an independent assessment into the GSGB by Professor Sturgis – who looked at both our new methodology and our approach to its development. In his assessment, Professor Sturgis made some key recommendations for the Commission to consider, to ensure the quality and robustness of the statistics continues to build confidence. We will naturally deliver against those and we also note the risks he identified in having a new methodology and the caution that should be applied when seeking to draw precise conclusions. But alongside this, Professor Sturgis not only described our work developing this methodology as ‘exemplary in all respects’; he makes clear there is no going back.

GSGB is now a reality. We will continue to develop it over time, of course. But the Commission has taken the steps we needed to both safeguard and improve our data. Better evidence, driven by better data will lead to better regulation, which in turn will lead to better outcomes.

I think it’s right that everyone should be able to see how we have approached this and what the independent review says, but for those wanting to debate trends in the industry it is important to be equally rigorous when relying on other sources and to be clear what the strengths and limitations of that dataset is. I have seen some seeking to decry the GSGB before it has even been published in full, because we have been open about the areas where we need to exercise some caution, sometimes vocally supporting datasets which support their argument, where there is little or nothing known about how those figures have been constructed. I think everyone can do better than that and there is an obligation on all of us to use research, statistics and insight in a responsible way.

We also hear concerns sometimes that we don’t do enough to hear from consumers who suffer no harms from their gambling. Gamblers who some often describe as gambling recreationally. I thought it might be useful to dig a little deeper on what we are doing with our Consumer Voice research, which is one of the ways we engage with consumers who gamble recreationally, as some describe it.

Our Consumer Voice programme is designed to deliver in-depth research that brings the voice of gambling consumers into the Commission. This is made up of both a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to gather views, opinions, and insights from gambling consumers.

The work complements our nationally representative statistics on gambling participation and the prevalence of problem gambling, collected using the GSGB, but goes into more depth on key issues and emerging areas of interest.

In the last year we have spoken to over 7,000 consumers through the programme, covering topics including the cost of living, bonus offers and incentives, financial risk checks, and consumer trust. We speak to consumers in a range of different ways – through focus groups, in depth interviews, online communities, behaviour diaries and online surveys. And in these different ways, the programme gives us access to a diverse and representative pool of consumers to ensure that we take on board the experiences of all gamblers – from those who gamble occasionally to those who are more engaged.

So these aren’t small groups and samples sizes that we are then extrapolating regulatory direction from. This work is being done year in, year out, at scale and we are speaking to consumers in depth to really understand their views and experiences. It’s also worth pointing out that all this work is another important focus of our Corporate Strategy as well. Underlining the importance we place on this work in the years ahead.

The findings from our Consumer Voice research are not considered in isolation either, but alongside evidence from a range of different sources as part of the bigger evidence picture that we assess using our evidence assurance process. And that gives us real scale. When you take together the different types of surveys and statistics we run each year, in 2023 it represented the views and behaviours of around 40,000 people. So let there be no doubt over whether the Gambling Commission is interested in the views of consumers and those impacted by or interested in gambling. We are to the tune of tens of thousands of people each and every year.

So the Gambling Commission is committed to strengthening its evidence and improving our own statistics. We’re doing that through our participation and prevalence methodology. We’re doing it through how we engage with consumers. And we’re going further by investing in and applying research techniques and approaches to gambling that haven’t been used enough before. One such example is our work with Open Banking data.

This project forms a key pillar of our data innovation programme, together with the GSGB and the Regular Feed of Operator Core Data (ROCD) project. Simply put, through analysing millions of rows of data, the Open Banking project has already had a positive impact on our regulatory development. Alongside other evidence, including of course the thousands of consultation responses, the Open Banking data helped us settle on the most appropriate thresholds at which to set the new financial vulnerability checks. It enables us to see not just a sample of individual’s spending behaviour with specific operators, but also their spend across all remote operators, all within the context of their wider financial behaviours.

We are currently in the process of further expanding the scope of this project, by procuring an increased sample size and incorporating regular data updates. This will enable us to track consumer behaviours and the market over time as the regulatory environment evolves, providing a powerful new tool for research, regulatory development and evaluation.

There are new challenges from the broader use of data at our doorstep today though. There are always new trends emerging but if you look at the evolving role of both team-level and player-level data in sports betting you can see some really big movements that have been taking place. Many have commented on the growth of bet builders and in-play markets in recent years, but what we see now are new challenges for consumers as they can engage with much more subjective micro-markets.

Whether a goal has been scored, a corner given, a yellow card shown and so on are events that are not subjective – they either happened or they didn’t. People might debate if they should have been awarded in their opinion, but there is no dispute that they were. That’s not so much the case on the increasingly popular player-level markets. Whether a shot was taken, was on target, a tackle made and a variety of other micro-markets are ultimately more subjective. Once we introduce concepts which require a human being to make a subjective judgement, we introduce debate and argument. I’m not saying these micro-markets should not exist, but we have seen a notable increase in disputes from consumers where already higher-margin, multiple-selection bets now have elements which one person might see differently, especially when it makes the difference between winning and losing.

Technology and its continuing development, as well as Artificial Intelligence (AI), may well help here but what we do already see today is a significant set of products where consumers are disputing whether the micro-event, perhaps just a single movement in 90 plus minutes of football, happened or not and that brings all kinds of challenges for regulators, as well as the industry. The compilers and providers of data have many processes in place and specific rules to describe events and they often have no relationship with the bets or liquidity itself, but nonetheless this has brought new challenges to us.

An extension of this is the likely continuing journey towards hyper-personalisation. There are already products in development which allow the user to see an event in 3D with data easily presented which is more and more meaningful to their preferences, which you can easily imagine being converted into options rather than things which are merely interesting.

On the one hand, perhaps it presents an opportunity to reduce unwanted cross-selling of products to consumers, but if products or the delivery of them is increasingly attuned to a consumer’s interests and what engages them most, what risks does this present in terms of managing the risks of excessive gambling?

I’m not standing here with a view or position on that, but let’s all understand these are things which will need serious thought by both the industry and its regulators.

The shape of the British market has continued to change in recent years. My colleague, Rab Grewal presented some thoughts on what our Market Insight data tells us a little earlier today and I hope a number of you were able to have a listen. Our Market Impact data isn’t the same as our official Industry Statistics – they aren’t comparable – but they are another valuable tool in analysing what’s going on in the market. So what does it tell us about recent years? Well as Rab told us earlier, we’ve continued to see:

• the number of active accounts bring reported by operators is going up and the number of products they are engaging in has gone up too. For example, the number of actives engaging in real event betting increased 15 percent in March of this year compared to March 2021
• whilst at the same time, the average GGY generated by these active accounts has gone down, as has the number of spins and bets. In the year 2021, an average active playing casino games other than slots placed 137 bets in a month, whereas in 2023, it was 128 bets.

I don’t want to make any rash judgments from this data and what it may mean especially as it only covers a segment of the market. But this data is consistent with what the larger operators have been saying publicly about a shift to a more recreationally focused business model. As our data for GSGB participation builds, we will be able to use the market insight dataset in conjunction with findings from GSGB to better understand the number of activities participants are engaging in.

Another area where we are looking to improve our data and where we recently consulted are our Regulatory Returns. This is the core data operators have to provide us each year, and having consulted on changes we are now implementing them. Getting it right is critical. Hopefully those of you here today representing gambling businesses with a licence from us already know this but, we are moving to collect this data quarterly from all operators instead of the previous set up that only asked for data annually from many operators. At the same time we are also reducing the number of questions operators have to answer. These changes will come into force from 1 July 2024 – that’s next week - for all licensees. So if you aren’t already on top of this, here is your final warning to do so.

And that means that the first set of the now quarterly regulatory returns – those relating to the quarterly return period 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024 - must be submitted by all licensees by 28 October 2024. If anyone hearing this or reading it later has questions, get in touch with us. As I said, it’s critical we get this right.

Of course there is another – often more publicised - data point operators are involved in and that is our compliance and enforcement work. But, what we are seeing today in our compliance assessments, compared to previously, is a very significant increase in the number of larger operators in particular being found to be compliant at the point of their assessment by the Commission. What we saw last year was the rate of operators achieving compliant first time outcomes in our assessments more than doubled and the compliance rate of the largest operators has almost trebled in the past 2 years. This does mean that with les of our resources deployed working with Tier 1 and 2 operators, we are able to spend more time with other tier operators in our market.

And that uptick in compliance has been mirrored in our enforcement work. I’m sure, from my conversations with the industry, that the years of record breaking penalties made operators sit up and take notice: Myself and Andrew are often asked at industry events whether I think the period of significant enforcement cases and penalties is behind us and the reality is that I can’t know that but I hope that is the case. The trend data certainly points to that looking much more established, but we should never be complacent. The reality is, ensuring compliance is complicated and is dealing with individual consumer behaviours which are not linier and not always predictable:

• in the financial year of 2022 to 2023 the Commission concluded 24 enforcement cases with operators paying over £60 million in sanctions
• this compares with 19 enforcement cases in total in 2023 to 2024 leading to £13.4 million in sanctions.

As I said: we aren’t being complacent and our work in Compliance and Enforcement is a focus set out in our Corporate Strategy. But this is we think, encouraging evidence of an improving compliance picture from operators offering gambling to consumers in Great Britain.

Beyond this our Enforcement and Intelligence teams have also been stepping up their work against illegal online gambling as well. Our aim set out in our strategy, is to make it difficult to provide illegal gambling at scale to consumers in Great Britain.

That means identifying high impact, upstream disruption methods. This involves identifying the key facilities an illegal operation requires such as visibility, payment processing and software and facilities. Then finding smarter ways of shutting those off.

Alongside a significant increase in our intelligence-led disruption efforts, we’ve also been engaging for some time with other bodies and regulators, such as the National Crime Agency, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), to deliver a combined approach wherever possible.

For example, our work with HMRC where we have been tackling illegal Facebook lotteries has not only seen those lotteries shut down by the Gambling Commission, but the organisers have found themselves paying £600,000 in penalties to HMRC as well.

And what is all of this achieving?

• in 2023 the Commission issued 452 cease and desist and disruption notices. This includes 291 cease and desists notices to illegal websites and 161 referred to Facebook for closure, resulting in 212 instances where supply was disrupted (79 online websites and 133 Facebook closures)
• in the same period, over 7000 URL’s associated with illegal gambling were reported to Google for delisting
• but we have greatly increased our illegal markets disruption activity again in 2024. In April and May this year, we referred a further 28,000 URLs associated with 113 websites and to date, 89 of those websites have been removed from Google’s search results. We have also issued 339 Cease and Desist and disruption notices.  

More work in these areas is planned with meetings arranged with Yahoo to replicate the URLs work undertaken with Google and we also plan to engage with others in this space too.

So for every intervention you see from the Commission in the licenced sector, I’ve hopefully given you an insight into the quantity of work we’re also doing in the unlicenced, illegal space as well.

Much of what we do has been grounded in another key element of our approach and that is collaboration – another key part of our Corporate Strategy. Whether with industry, other regulators, or others, the Commission remains committed to collaborating with others to make gambling safer, fairer and more crime free. Last year we engaged with stakeholders over 250 times, through events like this, one to one meetings or our own workshops and roundtables. That’s a senior stakeholder engagement for every working day of the year. We’re committed to this approach because it delivers results. For both consumers and operators a like. And the great thing is, the more results we deliver, the more space we have to explore where else we can look to collaborate on even more issues.

So let me leave it there. The Gambling Commission is determined to work with anyone who will work with us to build better outcomes in Great Britain. For consumers, for operators and for wider society.

Last updated: 8 July 2024

No changes to show.

We are not able to respond to comments but your feedback will help us improve our website.

Complaints and queries

Do not use this form for complaints as we will not reply. If you want to complain about a gambling business or need further help please contact us .

User research

If you want to provide feedback about new services and features, join our user research programme .

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy (opens in new tab) and Terms of Service (opens in new tab) apply.

Senior Manager, Real Estate Tax

Job posting for senior manager, real estate tax at kpmg us.

• Manage a portfolio of real estate clients of varying size and scope and act as the point of contact for internal and external clients; build and handle client relationships by advising them and being responsible for delivering high quality tax service and advice
• Work as part of a cross-functional account team for your clients that may cross audit, tax and advisory; manage and empower teams of tax professionals/assistants working on client projects
• Oversee financial performance of your client engagements including billing, collections, and the budget for projects
• Advise clients and be responsible for delivering high quality tax service and advice
• Participate in and contribute to market and business activities supporting our practices High Growth Sector
• Manage risk for KPMG and our clients by understanding the technical tax aspects of various reporting positions
• Minimum eight years of recent experience as a tax manager with a public accounting firm; partnership tax experience in the financial services industry specific to real estate and real estate private equity funds
• Bachelor's degree from an accredited college/university; licensed CPA, JD/LLM or EA, in addition to others on KPMG's approved credential listing; any individual who does not possess at least one of the approved designations/credentials when their employment commences, has one year from their date of hire to obtain at least one of the approved designations/credentials; should you like to see the complete list of currently approved designations/credentials for the hiring practice/service line, your recruiter can provide you with that list
• Proficiency in the taxation of REITs, partnerships, and other flow-through entities
• Exceptional skills in reviewing 1120-REIT and 1065 tax returns, including complex partner allocations
• Excellent research and writing skills; applied working knowledge of REIT and partnership tax regulations and ASC 740
• Strong verbal and written communication skills with the ability to articulate complex financial information and experience managing multiple client engagements and client service teams

Apply for this job

Receive alerts for other Senior Manager, Real Estate Tax job openings

Report this Job

Salary.com Estimation for Senior Manager, Real Estate Tax in Milwaukee, WI

$131,501 - $179,163

For Employer

Looking to price a job for your company?

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs that are on the Senior Manager, Real Estate Tax career path.

Click the checkbox next to the jobs that you are interested in.

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs with skills like those required for the Senior Manager, Real Estate Tax .

Account Reconciliation Skill

• Accounts Receivable Analyst I Income Estimation: $48,409 - $65,505
• Billing Analyst I Income Estimation: $48,807 - $67,139

Accounts Payable Skill

• Accounts Payable Analyst I Income Estimation: $49,942 - $66,846
• Accounting Clerk III Income Estimation: $52,302 - $65,159

Job openings at KPMG US

Not the job you're looking for here are some other senior manager, real estate tax jobs in the milwaukee, wi area that may be a better fit., we don't have any other senior manager, real estate tax jobs in the milwaukee, wi area right now..

Tax & Accounting Manager

Real Wealth Tax & Accounting LLC , Kewaskum, WI

Real Estate Services Manager - Hybrid - Remote | WFH

Get It Recruit - Real Estate , Brookfield, WI

Your company may already be a member. View our member list to find out, or create a new account .

Forgot Password?

Content Library

You can search our content library for case studies, research, industry insights, and more.

You can search our website for events, press releases, blog posts, and more.

How KPMG Used Spoof Products to Show It Understood Its Target Audience

July 5, 2024    

To show decision makers that it understood them, KPMG designed a series of spoof products, based on a grocery store “own brand” range, each meant to represent one of the Consumer Consulting division’s offerings.

This Is an ANA Member Exclusive

Access to this item is reserved for ANA members only.

Already have an account? The industry's best insights and resources await:

No Account?

Use your business email address to create your free account ; if you're a member through your company, we'll know.

Members can access their benefits as soon as they sign up and log in.

Not a Member?

You can still create a free account to access the latest from our online publication, ANA Magazine , receive content and special event offers through our newsletters, get breaking industry updates, and so much more.

The content you're trying to see is available to:

• ANA Client-Side Marketer Tier Members
• Platinum Tier Members
• Gold Tier Members
• Silver Tier Members
• Individual Members

Discover everything the ANA can do to help drive growth for your organization. Connect with our membership team.