Home › A short history of accounting
History
Not a figure of speech. The clay tokens Mesopotamian merchants used to record grain and livestock predate written language, and the marks made to represent them appear to be part of how writing itself began. People kept accounts before they wrote anything else down, because the question of who owes what came first.
The earliest accounting we can point to comes from ancient Mesopotamia, and it develops alongside writing, counting and money rather than after them. Small clay tokens represented quantities of goods, sealed inside clay envelopes so a shipment could be verified on arrival. Eventually somebody realised the marks pressed on the outside of the envelope made the tokens inside redundant, and the envelope became a tablet.
Early bookkeeping also appears in ancient Iran, and the Egyptians and Babylonians developed systems that were recognisably auditing: independent checks on the officials who held the stores. By the time of Augustus, the Roman government had access to remarkably detailed financial information about the empire it was running.
The through-line for four thousand years is not arithmetic. It is verification. Almost every development below is a response to the same problem: someone is holding something on behalf of someone else, and the second person would like to know.
Livestock was among the first things anyone needed to count, and the language never got over it.
None of this is coincidence. For most of human history the herd was the balance sheet, counting it was the accounting, and the increase in it was the profit. Anyone doing farm books today is working in the oldest continuous line of the trade.
Some more etymology. Account and accounting come through French from the Latin computare, to reckon or count up.
Audit comes from the Latin audire, to hear. Accounts were read aloud and the auditor was the person who listened, because in a largely illiterate world the verification was oral. The word outlived the practice by several centuries.
Debit and credit come from debere, to owe, and credere, to entrust or believe. A creditor is literally someone who has believed you.
The single most important idea in accounting is that every transaction has two sides. Money does not appear; it moves from somewhere. Recording both ends makes the books self-checking, because if the two sides do not agree, something is missing.
Merchants in the Italian city states were using this by the fourteenth century. The surviving municipal records of Genoa from around 1340 are among the earliest complete double-entry accounts we have, and the Medici bank in Florence ran on the method at considerable scale.
It was Luca Pacioli, a Franciscan friar and mathematician, who set it out for everyone else. His Summa de Arithmetica, printed in Venice in 1494, included a section describing the bookkeeping method used by Venetian merchants: journal, ledger, trial balance, the lot.
He is often called the father of accounting, which he would probably have disputed. He did not invent double entry. He described it clearly, at the moment the printing press could spread it, and it went across Europe. Pacioli also taught mathematics to Leonardo da Vinci, who repaid the favour by illustrating another of his books.
Roughly five centuries later, the method is unchanged. The software is new. The idea underneath it is the one printed in Venice.
Double entry is usually taught with a shape rather than a formula. Draw a T, put the account name across the top, debits on the left and credits on the right.
Nothing was created. Value moved from one place to another, and both ends were recorded. If the two columns ever stop agreeing, an entry is missing or wrong, which is the whole point of the design.
One entry is a demonstration. What makes the system useful is what happens when you do it repeatedly and then add everything up. Here is a very small business through its first year.
| 1 | The owner puts $50,000 into the business |
|---|---|
| 2 | Buys equipment for $4,000, paid in cash |
| 3 | Does $12,000 of work, invoiced but not yet paid |
| 4 | Pays wages of $5,000 |
| 5 | Collects $7,000 of the money owed |
Five transactions, ten entries, six accounts. Each number below carries the transaction it came from.
Add up every left-hand balance and every right-hand balance: 62,000 each way. That is the trial balance, and it is the only check the system needs to prove that nothing has been recorded on one side alone.
Every balance above is one of seven elements, and the standard names them exactly. The statements are those elements sorted.
| Assets | What the business controls. Our cash, receivable and equipment |
|---|---|
| Liabilities | What it owes. Our example has none, which is unusual and makes it simpler than real life |
| Equity | The owner's residual claim, being whatever is left after the liabilities |
| Revenues | Earnings from what the business actually does |
| Expenses | The cost of doing it |
| Gains | Increases arising outside the ordinary activities |
| Losses | Decreases arising the same way |
The split between revenues and gains repays a moment's attention, because it is not a technicality. If this business later sold that equipment for $5,000, the extra $1,000 would be a gain rather than revenue, because selling equipment is not what the business does.
Keeping them apart matters because anyone reading the statements is trying to work out what will happen again next year. Revenue is a claim about the ordinary business. A one-off sale of a truck is not, and a set of statements that mixed them would flatter a year that was not really that good.
The first three elements make up the balance sheet, and their relationship is the accounting equation: assets minus liabilities equals equity. The last four make up the income statement.
The six balances sort themselves into two statements without anything further being calculated. Revenue and expenses go to one. Everything the business owns and owes goes to the other.
The highlighted line is the join. Profit is not a separate thing that happens next to the balance sheet. It is the amount by which the owner's stake grew, and it appears in both statements because it is the same fact described twice.
It is also why the two carry different dates, which is worth noticing on any real set of statements. A balance sheet is headed as at a date. It is a photograph of a single instant, showing what the business held the moment the shutter closed. An income statement is headed for the year ended. It covers a stretch of time rather than a point in it.
So they are not two views of the same thing. One is a photograph, the other is the account of what happened between photographs, and the profit line is where the second plugs into the first. Last year's balance sheet, plus this year's profit, plus whatever the owners put in or took out, gives you this year's balance sheet.
Notice what the numbers already tell you without anyone interpreting them. The business made $7,000 and holds $48,000 in cash, but $5,000 of its earnings is still sitting in somebody else's bank account. It owns equipment that cost $4,000 and has not yet been depreciated. Nothing is owed to suppliers or lenders. All of that came out of five entries and no analysis.
Nothing in that example was difficult, and it produced statements that are arithmetically perfect. Which raises the question the rest of this page is really about: what separates good financial statements from merely correct ones?
The Canadian framework for private companies answers it with four qualities. Information should be:
Listed like that they read as a wish list. The useful insight is that they conflict with each other, and preparing financial statements is largely the work of choosing between them. The standard treats this as central rather than incidental: having set out the four characteristics, it devotes a further paragraph to the trade-off between them.
| Relevant or reliable | You can have a number quickly or you can have it certain. Month-end figures are useful because they are fast and imperfect. Audited statements are reliable and arrive months later. Both are legitimate; neither is both |
|---|---|
| Comparable or relevant | Keeping the same treatment as last year makes the years comparable. Changing to a better treatment makes this year more informative and breaks the comparison. Standards lean toward consistency, which is why changing an accounting policy requires a reason |
| Prudent or neutral | Caution feels responsible, and deliberate understatement is still a bias. It protects a lender and misleads a buyer. Canadian private company standards retain a degree of conservatism; international standards moved toward neutrality instead |
| Complete or understandable | More disclosure is not automatically more informative. A note pack long enough that nobody finishes it can conceal as effectively as saying nothing |
Sitting over all four is the constraint that decides most of it in practice: the benefit of information has to exceed the cost of producing it.
That is not a grudging concession to small business. It is the whole reason a separate framework exists for private companies at all. A public company has thousands of shareholders who cannot ask questions, so the cost of extensive disclosure is worth bearing. An owner-managed business has a reader who can walk down the hall, and imposing the same requirements would spend real money producing information nobody needed.
One consequence of all this deserves saying on its own, because the way people talk about it hides the point. The notes are part of the financial statements. A balance sheet handed over without them is not a shorter set of statements. It is an incomplete one.
The reason is that the face of the statements is severely compressed. A single line reading Inventory 240,000 tells a reader almost nothing: not what it consists of, not how it was valued, not whether any of it has been written down, not whether it has been pledged as security for the operating loan. All of that sits in the notes, and any of it could change what somebody decides.
Standards set a floor. Clearing it is compliance. The more interesting question is what the reader actually needs, and the two do not always coincide.
The disclosures that most often carry weight in an owner-managed business:
There are two ways to get this wrong and both are common.
Too little, and the figures cannot be interpreted. A reader draws a reasonable conclusion from an incomplete picture and is wrong through no fault of their own.
Too much, and the one note that mattered is buried inside pages of boilerplate carried forward unchanged for years. Disclosure that nobody finishes reading is not disclosure, which is the completeness and understandability trade-off arriving in practical form.
The test worth applying is not whether something is required. It is whether a reasonable person would decide differently if they knew.
So the honest answer to what makes statements good is that it depends who is reading them and what they intend to do. Everything that follows, the standards, the frameworks, the professional bodies, is an attempt to settle that question in advance so that each set of statements does not have to argue it from scratch.
The other thing every accounting student meets is the cycle: the same sequence, every period, forever.
The usual diagram is a wheel of equal steps, which hides the most useful thing about it. The top row happens continuously, hundreds of times, and is mostly automated. The bottom row happens once and is where the judgment lives. Software collapses the top row into something invisible, which is convenient until a number is wrong and you need to know where it came from.
For most of its history, accounting was a skill rather than a profession. What changed it was the joint stock company.
Once a business could be owned by people who had nothing to do with running it, the owners needed a way to check on the managers. The Industrial Revolution produced enormous companies, railway booms, and the spectacular bankruptcies that followed them. Somebody independent had to look at the books and say whether they could be believed.
The profession organised itself first in Scotland. The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh received a royal charter in 1854, which is where the term chartered accountant comes from. England and Wales followed with their own institute in 1880.
The names on today's largest firms are mostly nineteenth century individuals. William Welch Deloitte set up in London in 1845. Samuel Lowell Price in 1849. Others followed through the century, and the American firm founded by Arthur Andersen arrived in 1913.
They consolidated steadily. The Big Eight of the post-war decades became the Big Six through mergers around 1989, then the Big Five in 1998, and then the Big Four in 2002 when Arthur Andersen collapsed in the aftermath of Enron. That collapse produced the modern regulatory architecture in a good deal of the world, including independent oversight of auditors and the rules on what other services an auditor may sell to an audit client.
It is worth remembering that the entire apparatus exists because of the same problem the Egyptians had. The stakes changed. The question did not.
Canada organised early. The Association of Accountants in Montreal, organised in 1879 and incorporated in 1880, was the first accounting body in North America and only the fifth anywhere in the world. Ontario's institute traces its own origins to 1879.
A national body followed: the association incorporated by Act of Parliament in 1902 became the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
What makes the Canadian story distinctive is that it did not stay a single profession. Three designations developed alongside each other, each answering a different need:
Each is worth setting out properly, because the differences between them explain the profession that resulted, and there is now a generation qualifying who will never meet the distinction.
The oldest of the three and the closest to the Scottish original. The CA grew out of public practice: the accountant with clients, examining records prepared by somebody else and reporting on whether they could be relied on.
That origin shaped everything about it. Training was served through articling in a public accounting firm, on the apprenticeship model, and the qualification was oriented toward audit, assurance and the reporting frameworks that support them.
Its cultural stamp on the profession is the idea that an accountant's central obligation runs to a reader of the statements rather than to the person paying the fee.
The CGA began in 1908, when three accountants at the Canadian Pacific Railway in Montreal set up an association for people doing accounting work who had no route into the chartered body. It was chartered federally in 1913.
The founding idea was access. Study was by correspondence and part-time, undertaken while employed, and did not require an articling position in a public accounting firm, which at the time was the gate that kept most people out. The CGA route let someone working in a company's accounting department qualify without leaving the job or the city.
It produced a designation strongly represented in industry, government and small practice, and a great many CGAs worked in public practice with clients of their own.
Who could audit depended on where you were. Public accounting is licensed provincially, and the picture across Canada was genuinely inconsistent rather than uniformly restrictive.
In much of the country, particularly the western provinces, CGAs held full public accounting rights including audit, and had done for a long time. Ontario and Quebec were the notable exceptions, where audit was effectively reserved to CAs until licensing regimes were opened in the 2000s to candidates from all three bodies who met the requirements.
So the same designation carried different rights depending on the province, which was awkward to defend and became an argument for unification in itself.
The CMA descends from a body founded in 1920 for cost accountants, at a moment when Canadian manufacturing had grown complex enough that knowing what something cost to make had become a discipline of its own.
Its orientation was inward, and that is the whole distinction. The CA reported outward to shareholders and lenders; the CMA produced the information management used to run the place. Costing, budgeting, variance analysis, pricing, capital decisions, performance measurement. It later broadened from cost accounting into strategic management, but the centre of gravity never moved: the client was the decision-maker inside the organization.
Much of what now sits on the accounting solutions page is CMA territory in origin. The work did not disappear at unification; it stopped having its own letters.
Set side by side, the three were less competitors offering the same service than three answers to the question of who accounting information is for, and three views on how someone should be trained to produce it.
| CA | For the outside reader. Audit, assurance, public practice |
|---|---|
| CGA | For whoever needed it, by a route open to people already working rather than articling |
| CMA | For the decision-maker inside. Costing, planning, performance |
For most of the twentieth century they coexisted, competed for students, argued over public accounting rights, and periodically discussed merging. Canadian accountants held strong views on the subject, and some still do.
It finally happened in the 2010s. CICA and CMA Canada unified on 1 April 2013 to form CPA Canada, and CGA-Canada integrated on 1 October 2014, bringing all three under the Chartered Professional Accountant designation.
Provincial bodies moved on their own timetables, since regulation of the profession is provincial rather than federal. Legacy designations were carried alongside CPA for a transitional period, which is why you still occasionally see letters that no longer exist as separate designations.
The practical result is one designation and one set of standards, with public accounting separately licensed. Holding a CPA is not the same as being licensed to issue audit and review reports, which is a further step. See audits and review engagements.
Canadian accounting standards were once a single handbook applying broadly to everyone. They are now a set of frameworks, each aimed at a particular kind of entity, and choosing the right one is the first decision in any engagement.
| IFRS | International Financial Reporting Standards. Required for publicly accountable enterprises since fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2011, when Canada abandoned its own GAAP for listed companies |
|---|---|
| ASPE | Accounting Standards for Private Enterprises. A deliberately Canadian framework for private companies, simpler than IFRS. Most owner-managed businesses report under it. See financial statements |
| ASNPO | Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations, applied alongside ASPE where ASNPO is silent |
| PSAS | Public Sector Accounting Standards, for governments and their organizations, set by a separate board |
Alongside them sit the assurance standards: Canadian Auditing Standards for audits, converged with international standards; CSRE 2400 for review engagements; and CSRS 4200 for compilations, which replaced the old Notice to Reader and now requires the basis of accounting to be disclosed. More recently, quality management standards have changed how firms are expected to run themselves rather than how any single engagement is performed.
The interesting part of the Canadian story is that convergence with international standards was deliberately partial.
For publicly accountable enterprises, Canada went all the way: IFRS, adopted rather than adapted. For private companies it did the opposite, declining to adopt the international standard for smaller entities and building ASPE instead, on the view that Canadian private companies were better served by something designed for them. That decision has held, and ASPE continues to be maintained and improved as its own framework.
The public sector has taken a third path, with its board using international public sector standards as a starting point while adapting them to Canadian circumstances rather than adopting them wholesale.
So Canada sits in three positions at once, on purpose. It is a reasonable answer to a real question: the arguments for a single global standard are strongest where capital crosses borders, and weakest for a business whose readers are its owner, its bank and the CRA.
The route into the profession in Ontario is long and reasonably clear. A degree with specified prerequisite coursework, then the CPA Professional Education Program, then thirty months of practical experience recorded and verified, and then the Common Final Examination, a three-day case exam with a reputation it has earned.
CPA Ontario sets out the current requirements and the alternative entry routes, including for people arriving with a degree in something else or with an international designation.
What is taught and tested is defined by the CPA Competency Map, and that map is being replaced. Competency Map 2.0, published under the title Leading the Way, is structured around five enabling competencies, the personal and professional attributes expected to run through everything a CPA does, and six technical competency areas. Candidates must reach a defined proficiency in all five enabling competencies during their practical experience, not merely pass examinations.
The revision is worth reading for what it says about where the profession thinks it is going. The map's own foreword names the forces it is responding to: automation, artificial intelligence, social and geopolitical pressures, blockchain and ESG. That is a professional body rewriting the definition of competence because the work is changing underneath it.
The delivery is still being built. A separate Certification 2.0 project is working out where and how these competencies get taught and assessed, so anyone starting now should take the current requirements from CPA Ontario rather than from any summary.
What surprises people considering it is where the designation actually leads. Most CPAs do not work in public practice. They are in industry as controllers and finance directors, in government, in not-for-profits, in banking, in consulting. Public practice, the accountant-with-clients model, is one destination among several and not the largest.
Specialization comes afterward and is where the interesting work tends to be: tax, through the in-depth programs; assurance; forensic accounting and investigation; business valuation, which carries its own designation; insolvency and restructuring; and now sustainability. The designation is the entry ticket rather than the destination.
The honest caution is that it is a genuinely difficult qualification taken while working, and the failure of the exam is a normal event rather than a disqualifying one. The people who finish are not the ones who found it easy.
The pattern in everything above is a single repeated event: a new group of people need to be able to believe something they are being told, and the profession is asked to make that possible.
Each time it has happened, accounting has grown a new branch.
| Owners could not watch managers | Audit, and the chartered profession |
|---|---|
| Governments needed to assess income | Tax practice as a discipline of its own |
| Managers needed to steer, not just report | Cost and management accounting |
| Records moved into systems nobody could see | Systems and controls work, and the audit of the machine rather than the ledger |
| Disputes needed evidence that would stand up | Forensic accounting and litigation support |
| Private businesses had to be priced | Business valuation as a specialty |
| Investors want to assess climate and social risk | Sustainability reporting and assurance |
The current one is the last row, and it is moving quickly. Canada now has its own sustainability standards board and its first standards, built on the international baseline in the same adopt-and-adapt pattern used everywhere else in this story.
The other force is automation, which is doing to bookkeeping what the spreadsheet did to the columnar pad. That has not reduced the value of the work; it has moved it. What gets automated is the recording. What does not is deciding what a number means, whether it can be relied on, and what to do about it.
None of this is speculation on my part. The profession's own competency framework was rewritten for exactly these reasons, and says so on its first page.
Which is, once again, the same problem from the clay tablets. Someone is holding something on behalf of someone else, and the second person would like to know.
This page is a general historical overview rather than a technical reference, and it compresses a great deal. Dates for the formation of professional bodies vary depending on whether one counts the founding of a society or its incorporation, and standards and their effective dates change. Where something here matters to a decision, check it against the source.
If yours has stopped balancing, that is a conversation. Twenty minutes, no charge.
Call (905) 207-9639