How we help you
Wipfli’s audit and assurance services bring experience in a variety of industries, delivering support that identifies risks, best practices and opportunities to strengthen your business’s operations and compliance.
Experience a streamlined audit process.
Turn findings into meaningful organizational improvements.
Get industry-aligned regulatory compliance support.
Build greater transparency and trust with stakeholders.
Assurance for stakeholders and you
Wipfli brings 95 years of experience in audit and assurance services to help you navigate your most complex audit challenges.
Explore our audit and assurance services
Wipfli takes a customized, risk-based approach to your review or audit, with procedures focused on the critical issues facing each individual client. Our diverse experience in a wide range of industries, financial know-how and business practicality allow us to use our client’s time and resources efficiently.
Get the most out of your internal audit. When you outsource or co-source your internal audit to Wipfli, you gain professionals who specialize in internal audits and bring a consultive mindset to working with you. We help you develop a strong internal audit plan, identify best practices, note inconsistencies and redundancies, and mitigate risk.
Wipfli has extensive experience providing audits for SOC 1, SOC 2 and SOC 3 using known frameworks. We can also help evaluate your preparedness against the Cloud Controls Matrix with a SOC 2+ audit.
When you need assurance beyond financial statements, Wipfli can provide third-party validation with agreed-upon procedures and other attest services. From contract compliance to director exams to SEC custody exams, we help remove doubt, offer validity and bring clarity and efficiency to the process.
With the increasing emphasis on transparency and accountability for federal funds, certain organizations may need to go beyond the financial statement audit. At Wipfli, our team of dedicated single audit professionals work with you to deliver a smooth single audit process.
Each year, Wipfli conducts over 700 employee benefit plan audits, with as few as 100 or as many as 50,000 participants and several billion dollars in assets. We understand the complexity of the requirements and can help you maintain compliance and adhere to your fiduciary responsibilities.
As a registered auditor with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Wipfli provides PCAOB audits to SEC issuers and broker-dealers. We bring objectivity and practicality to every audit, helping you maintain your compliance.
Featured insights
EVENT | October 8, 2026
Nexus studies and voluntary disclosure agreements: How to manage multistate tax exposure
You could be exposed to state tax liabilities you don’t know about. State tax nexus can be triggered by a single remote employee, inventory stored in a third-party warehouse, or simply crossing an economic sales threshold. This webinar explores two of the most critical — and most frequently misunderstood — tools in multistate tax compliance: Nexus studies and voluntary disclosure agreements (VDAs).
ARTICLE
Capital allocation strategy: A guide to help CFOs establish funding priorities
For many businesses, capital allocation strategy is no longer just about where the organization wants to grow. It’s increasingly about whether the business has the cash flow visibility, operational readiness and execution capacity required to support growth effectively. That shift is changing how finance leaders approach capital allocation planning, investment sequencing and long-term financial performance heading into the next fiscal year. Keep reading to learn more. What is capital allocation strategy? Capital allocation strategy is the process of deciding how to best deploy your business’s financial resources to achieve growth and profitability. This involves reviewing your business’s strategic goals and deciding when and where to spend money to achieve them. Capital allocation strategy is led at the C-suite level, often with input from the board. CEOs, CFOs and other top executives are typically part of capital allocation conversations. Why does capital allocation strategy matter? Capital allocation strategy matters because effectively deploying your business’s financial resources is essential to growth and profitability. Even the most successful businesses can’t afford to burn through capital aimlessly, so implementing a focused capital strategy that aligns with your strategic goals helps ensure that your spending drives those goals forward. Capital allocation strategy is changing as decisions become more operationally connected In many organizations, challenges or pressures first appear operationally long before financial reporting clearly reflects the issue. In response, leaders are taking a more adaptive, flexible approach to allocating capital. Finance leaders are now basing capital allocation on a broader set of criteria Historically, capital allocation processes often focused heavily on projected return, growth potential and budget availability. Today, finance leaders are evaluating a broader set of operational and financial questions that help determine whether investments can realistically deliver long-term ROI. Does this investment strengthen the organization’s core business strengths or competitive position? Will this investment improve operational efficiency or execution capacity? Will it reduce friction or introduce additional complexity? Does the organization have the capacity to support implementation successfully? Will it improve measurable financial outcomes such as EBITDA, cash flow or margin performance? Does leadership have sufficient visibility to evaluate performance and ROI effectively? Why CFOs are prioritizing visibility, scalability and cash flow management In many organizations, growth initiatives expanded faster than the surrounding processes, capacity, reporting structures and operational workflows could mature around them. Over time, that creates fragmented reporting, inconsistent visibility and growing execution pressure across finance and operations teams. As a result, CFOs are placing greater emphasis on capital allocation planning tied directly to: Working capital visibility Forecasting accuracy Operational scalability (link to strategy and operations consulting) Cash flow management Margin improvement Technology utilization Workforce flexibility Measurable EBITDA levers That shift is making capital allocation strategy far more operationally integrated than in previous planning cycles. Why leaders should reevaluate spending that creates drag Many organizations are reevaluating investments that increase activity without improving visibility, decision-making or long-term operational performance. Here are key actions: Reassess certain expenditures that may be unnecessary Consider whether all your current expenditures are still necessary. We frequently see leadership teams reassessing: Underutilized technology platforms Duplicate systems and vendors Manual reporting processes Initiatives with unclear ownership Investments that expand staffing pressure without improving scalability Programs that continue simply because they already exist Individually, these issues may appear manageable. Collectively, they create operational drag and bottlenecks that limit flexibility and consume leadership attention. Ask hard questions to determine whether spending is necessary Overcoming operational drag is one reason capital allocation strategy conversations are increasingly tied to operational efficiency and performance improvement efforts across the organization. In pursuit of that effort, finance leaders are asking harder questions about: Where investment should continue When to continue investing — and when to divest, consolidate or exit Which initiatives should pause or be moved to long-term Where outside expertise may improve flexibility Which operational burdens can be outsourced Consider whether some finance infrastructure may be unnecessary Many organizations are also reevaluating whether existing finance infrastructure is creating unnecessary complexity. In some cases, disparate systems and inconsistent reporting environments make it difficult for leadership teams to evaluate performance confidently or prioritize investments effectively. That’s driving increased focus on forecasting visibility, reporting modernization and financial planning and analysis capabilities that improve decision-making across the business. Visibility is becoming more valuable than speed Many leadership teams still want to move quickly. But increasingly, CFOs are recognizing that accelerating decisions without improving visibility often creates more operational strain later. And many leadership teams are recognizing that faster decisions are not helpful if the underlying reporting environment is inconsistent or difficult to trust. That’s driving greater investment in: Financial planning and analysis Forecasting and reporting modernization Scenario planning capabilities Cash flow visibility ERP optimization Working capital management Operational reporting consistency Without strong visibility, organizations often struggle to identify: Where cash flow pressure may already be building Which initiatives are improving financial performance Where profitability trends may be deteriorating Which investments should accelerate Which initiatives should pause or consolidate And where operational bottlenecks may limit future growth This is especially important as organizations face increasing pressure to justify capital allocation decisions with measurable operational and financial outcomes. Selective investment is replacing broad expansion Many organizations are still investing confidently. But increasingly, leaders are prioritizing investments tied to measurable operational value, stronger forecasting visibility and improved execution capacity. Key CFO capital allocation priorities We continue to see organizations prioritize: Automation tied to measurable efficiency gains Strategic outsourcing to increase scalability Financial visibility and forecasting improvements Working capital optimization Margin improvement initiatives Tax strategies that improve after-tax performance Selective modernization with clear operational outcomes Targeted acquisitions aligned to execution capacity Where CFOs are reining in spending At the same time, many are slowing or reevaluating initiatives that: Add operational complexity without improving visibility Require significant organizational change without clear ownership Create unclear or difficult-to-measure returns Expand strain across already overloaded teams That shift reflects a broader evolution in how finance leaders approach capital allocation and long-term planning. Growth remains a priority. But increasingly, leadership teams are evaluating whether the organization can realistically absorb additional complexity before accelerating investment further. Why an effective capital allocation strategy requires operational clarity The strongest capital allocation strategies are no longer driven solely by projected growth opportunities. They are increasingly shaped by cash flow visibility, operational readiness and execution capacity across the business. That’s changing how leadership teams approach: Investment prioritization Financial scenario planning Working capital management EBITDA improvement Technology modernization Workforce planning Long-term operational scalability Organizations navigating this environment most effectively are not necessarily the ones moving the fastest. They are the ones creating the clearest connection between financial performance, operational execution and long-term value creation. Capital allocation best practices As you develop your capital allocation strategy, keep certain best practices in mind. These include: Balance growth and operational capability: Capital should drive growth but be sure to invest in the operational infrastructure needed to support that growth as well. Reevaluate existing spending: Consider whether your current investments still align with or support your strategic goals. Prioritize visibility: Financial and operational visibility is essential to determining whether your investments are paying off or should be reconsidered. Avoid unnecessary complexity: Unfocused or unnecessarily complex systems, processes or initiatives create drag on your business as a whole. Read more AI ROI: How to get more business value from your AI spending When to hire a fractional CFO: Key signs your business is ready for strategic financial leadership Strategic management vs. strategic planning: a short guide
ARTICLE
Avoiding adjustable-rate mortgage loan compliance challenges
Adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) loans can present compliance challenges throughout the entire loan life cycle. From application disclosures to rate adjustment notices, even minor errors can result in regulatory violations, customer confusion and operational risk. Keep reading to learn about several common ARM compliance errors and for guidance on avoiding them. Timing of early disclosures A common mistake is the timing of early ARM disclosures, including the Consumer Handbook on Adjustable-Rate Mortgages or a suitable substitute and a loan program disclosure for each variable-rate program in which the consumer expresses an interest. These do not always allow you three business days from the application date to provide the disclosures, like other early disclosures. Regulation Z states that these disclosures must be provided at the time an application form is provided or before the consumer pays a non-refundable fee, whichever is earlier (except that the disclosures may be delivered or placed in the mail not later than three business days following receipt of a consumer’s application when the application reaches the creditor by telephone, or through an intermediary agent or broker). Based on that requirement, an in-person application request requires the disclosures to be provided on the date of application and cannot be mailed later. Common mistakes with loan program disclosures Other common issues include incorrect information in the ARM loan program disclosure. If the initial interest rate is a discounted or premium rate (not based on the index and margin in effect), this fact must be disclosed in the early disclosure, but it is often missing. If using the optional 15-year historical example, make sure the disclosure identifies the month and day being used for each year in the table, verify the indexes disclosed are correct, and the margin used was one in effect within the prior six months. Often, the table is not updated properly or quickly enough. When disclosing the initial interest rate and payment example for a $10,000 loan, make sure a current rate is being used. Also, when updating the index and margin, make sure the example payment reflects the newly disclosed rate. Avoiding violations with ARM rate changes ARM rate changes and notification requirements probably cause the most errors. Using the wrong index is a common mistake. For example, an index that specifies a weekly average may be inaccurately disclosed with the daily version of the index. The weekly average is calculated on Friday and is generally published the following Monday, but the daily index is often used instead of the weekly average, resulting in errors and incorrect interest rates being assigned to borrowers. Make sure the index is pulled from the correct source and matches what was disclosed in the promissory note. Another common issue involves periodic caps. Institutions should verify that the caps disclosed in the promissory note match those being used to calculate rate adjustments. It is common to have different caps for the first-rate change than for subsequent rate changes. The system might be set up for those initial caps, but not updated for the caps that will follow for any subsequent rate changes. Errors in rate change notices are common Rate change notices present additional challenges. An example of an error is failing to provide sufficient detail when describing the index used to determine the new rate. Some systems limit the number of characters, so it takes a bit of creativity to fit the required details, especially when trying to spell out the “X”-year weekly average constant maturity U.S. treasury securities index, which is quite lengthy. The weekly average part is often omitted when truncating, but it is an important distinction in the index used and should be included. Also, the estimated balance and projected new payment must be based on the projected balance and number of remaining payments due at the time the rate will be changed. But some notices include the current balance at the time the notice is generated rather than a projected balance, which also results in the new payment being inaccurately calculated on the notice. In addition, the requirement to disclose rate limits and foregone interest rate increases can be confusing, as the disclosures required by § 1026.20(c)(2)(iv) regarding foregone interest rate increases apply only to transactions permitting interest rate carryover. Usually, a promissory note does not include such a provision, yet the foregone interest disclosure is being included anyway. Even though the interest rate was not increased fully due to a limit or cap percentage, there is no foregone interest when the note does not allow for such carryover of interest. Another issue is the required timing of the ARM adjustment notices. An initial notice must be sent at least 210 days, but no more than 240 days, before the new payment at the adjusted rate is due. The subsequent notices must be sent at least 60 days, but no more than 120 days, before the new payment at the adjusted rate is due. Occasionally, the credit agreement for an ARM originated AFTER January 1, 2015 (the date Regulation Z ARM notice requirements were effective) does not have an adequate lookback period for selecting the index prior to the change date (at least 45 days), resulting in issues with meeting the timing requirements for the ARM adjustment notices. For example, if the credit agreement does not contain a lookback period and requires the index to be selected on the change date, it is not possible to send an ARM adjustment notice at least 60 days before the new payment at the new rate is due, because the index will not yet have been published. Remaining compliant While ARM loans present numerous compliance challenges, many of the most common errors can be prevented through strong procedures, staff training and periodic quality-control reviews. Regular validation of disclosures, rate calculations and notice content can help institutions remain compliant while providing accurate information to borrowers. Read more FDICIA requirements: How banks approaching $1 billion should prepare for FDICIA compliance Tips for mastering accurate CECL regulatory reporting 6 steps to strengthen your financial institution’s call report preparation process
Reach out to our team
Compliance is only the starting point. Connect with our team to see how Wipfli can help you see more value from assurance with actionable performance insights.
LET'S CONNECT
From identifying opportunities to addressing risks, Wipfli is ready to help you plan for what’s next while maintaining transparent, compliant operations.
