What Verdica's 656 score means for John Magnuson
John Magnuson's composite score of 656 out of 850 places him in the "elevated risk" band (580–669). This means his profile shows compliance and credential strengths in some areas but carries meaningful gaps that warrant closer attention before engaging his services.
A score in this range suggests the provider meets baseline regulatory requirements but has not demonstrated the consistent track record or credential depth expected of stronger performers. For a business owner or audit committee evaluating accounting providers, a 656 score signals: proceed with caution, verify references independently, and clarify the scope of work and oversight arrangements upfront.
The score is composite—meaning it weights multiple regulatory and credential data streams. No single factor alone explains the mid-range position; instead, the combination of licensing gaps, PCAOB performance, and disciplinary history produces this overall assessment.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials (340/850): This is the primary driver of the elevated-risk classification. A sub-score of 340 indicates material gaps in formal credentials, licensing status, or credential verification. In accounting, this typically reflects one or more of the following: lack of current CPA licensure, incomplete or lapsed professional registrations with state boards, unmet continuing education requirements, or missing credentials required for the scope of work offered. This is the weakest link in Magnuson's profile and the most actionable concern for a prospective client.
PCAOB Record (810/850): The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board sub-score of 810 is strong. This reflects Magnuson's audit quality, compliance with PCAOB inspection standards, and adherence to audit documentation and reporting requirements. A score this high indicates no recent or serious findings from PCAOB inspections. This is a genuine strength—it shows that where audit work has been subject to federal oversight, the quality and compliance posture have been solid.
Disciplinary (850/850): A perfect score here means no material disciplinary actions, complaints upheld against the provider, or regulatory sanctions on record with state boards or other disciplinary bodies tracked by Verdica. This suggests a clean professional history with no formal enforcement action.
What regulators in SD track for accounting providers
South Dakota, like all states, requires accounting providers to maintain active licenses and comply with board registration standards. The state board tracks:
- Active CPA licensure and renewal status
- Continuing professional education (CPE) compliance
- Firm registration (if applicable) and peer review participation
- Complaint and disciplinary history, including formal investigations
The PCAOB—a federally chartered nonprofit—inspects registered audit firms and auditors on a triennial (or more frequent) basis. PCAOB inspections assess:
- Audit documentation and quality control
- Compliance with auditing standards (AICPA, PCAOB-specific)
- Independence and conflict-of-interest protocols
- Partner and staff credentials
- Engagement risk assessments and audit procedures
A high PCAOB score indicates consistent adherence to these standards. A low credential score, conversely, often reflects gaps in active licensing, unmet CPE hours, or registration lapses—issues that would typically be resolved through state board reapplication or renewal.
The disciplinary score reflects formal action history: investigations by state boards, ethics complaints, license suspensions or revocations, or SEC or PCAOB sanctions.
Bottom line
John Magnuson presents a mixed profile: strong federal audit oversight (PCAOB 810) and a clean disciplinary record, but material credential or licensing gaps that need clarification. Before engaging him, verify his current South Dakota CPA license status, confirm CPE compliance, and request references from similar-scope engagements. If credentials are actively being remedied or if his work scope is narrow (e.g., bookkeeping rather than audit attestation), the elevated risk may be manageable—but do not assume.