What Verdica's 649 score means for Maia Stone
Maia Stone's composite score of 649 out of 850 places the firm in the elevated-risk band (580–669). This means the entity shows compliance capabilities but carries meaningful concerns that warrant attention before engagement. A score in this range suggests a mixed profile: some regulatory standing is intact, but weaknesses in one or more compliance dimensions are present enough to justify scrutiny.
For context, a score below 580 signals high risk; 670–739 is acceptable; and 800+ is excellent. At 649, Maia Stone is above the high-risk threshold but notably below acceptable. Anyone considering using this firm for accounting services—especially public entity work—should treat this score as a red flag requiring due diligence, not a passing grade. The firm is not yet in strong standing, and the reasons why matter.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials (320 / 850): This is the critical weak link. A score of 320 is very low and suggests substantive gaps in licensing, registration standing, or credential verification relative to what Colorado state boards require for accounting practice. State registration and active licensure are baseline requirements; a depressed score here indicates the firm may lack proper credentials, face lapsed registration, or have incomplete documentation on file with regulators. This is not a minor data point—it goes to whether the firm is legally authorized to operate.
PCAOB Record (810 / 850): This sub-score is strong and reflects the firm's audit quality and compliance history as measured by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. A score of 810 indicates the firm has generally performed well on PCAOB inspections and audits, with limited or no major findings on record. This is a bright spot and suggests the firm maintains reasonable technical audit standards and internal quality controls.
Disciplinary (850 / 850): A perfect score here means there are no recorded disciplinary actions, sanctions, or complaints in the state or federal regulatory record. The firm has a clean history from a formal enforcement perspective. This is positive but does not offset weakness in the License & Credentials dimension.
What regulators in CO track for accounting providers
Colorado's state board and the PCAOB operate in tandem to oversee accounting firms. The state board maintains the registry of licensed CPAs and firms, verifies education and exam passage, and enforces licensing requirements. Non-compliance—such as failure to renew registration, lack of required CPA supervision, or insufficient CPE (Continuing Professional Education)—depresses a provider's state standing and licensing score.
The PCAOB, a federal regulator, inspects audit quality and adherence to auditing standards. During inspections, the PCAOB reviews selected audit engagements, tests compliance with AICPA standards, and checks internal quality controls. Serious findings—such as insufficient audit evidence, improper revenue recognition testing, or failures to detect material errors—result in inspection reports that lower a firm's PCAOB-derived score. Minor findings or a history of corrective actions are also reflected but less severely.
Disciplinary records capture formal complaints, sanctions, and enforcement actions by either the state board or the SEC. A clean disciplinary record means no public complaints have been sustained and the firm has not been subject to sanctions or license suspension.
The gap in Maia Stone's profile—strong PCAOB and disciplinary scores offset by weak licensing credentials—suggests possible issues with registration status or documentation in Colorado's system, separate from day-to-day audit quality or prior violations.
Bottom line
Maia Stone's 649 score reflects elevated risk primarily driven by credential and licensing concerns, despite solid audit quality and a clean disciplinary record. Before engaging this firm, verify its current active registration status with the Colorado Board of Accountancy and confirm all required licenses are current and in good standing. The firm may be viable, but its regulatory standing needs clarification first.