What Verdica's 786 score means for McGowen Hurst Clark & Smith
McGowen Hurst Clark & Smith's composite score of 786 out of 850 places the firm in the "strong" band (740–799), signaling reliable compliance and regulatory standing. This score reflects data from PCAOB audit findings and Missouri state board registration—the two primary oversight mechanisms for public accounting firms. A score in this range suggests the firm meets core regulatory expectations and has not accumulated significant disciplinary history, but it is not in the highest tier (800–850, reserved for "excellent" ratings). For a business owner or CFO evaluating accounting providers, a 786 score indicates a provider with solid credentials and regulatory hygiene, though there are measurable gaps worth understanding before engagement.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials: 850 (perfect) This top sub-score means McGowen Hurst Clark & Smith holds current, unrestricted licensure in Missouri and meets all state registration requirements for a public accounting firm. In practical terms, this signals the firm has met educational, examination, and ethical baseline standards set by Missouri's state board and can legally provide audit and accounting services to public entities.
PCAOB Record: 690 (below average) This is the material constraint on the overall score. The PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) inspects and evaluates audit quality at firms serving public companies. A score of 690 in this dimension suggests the firm has experienced audit findings—deficiencies in audit execution, documentation, or quality control—that the PCAOB has identified in its inspection reports. In the accounting industry, PCAOB findings typically cover areas such as insufficient testing of material accounts, inadequate audit planning, or gaps in internal quality control procedures. These findings do not necessarily indicate fraud or criminal conduct; they reflect technical audit quality gaps that regulators flag for remediation. The 690 score indicates the firm has room for improvement in audit methodology or execution, and this gap is substantial enough to pull the overall composite down from the "excellent" band.
Disciplinary: 850 (perfect) This score indicates no material disciplinary actions by Missouri's state board or other tracked regulatory bodies. The firm has not been subject to sanctions, suspensions, or formal enforcement proceedings that would otherwise be flagged by the regulator. This is a positive signal about the firm's compliance posture and professional conduct record.
What regulators in MO track for accounting providers
Missouri's state board of accountancy oversees licensing, continuing education compliance, and ethical conduct. They can issue discipline for violations of professional standards, dishonest conduct, or failure to maintain competency.
The PCAOB, a federal body, conducts triennial or biennial inspections of audit firms and publishes findings in inspection reports. These reports document audit deficiencies observed during sample reviews of the firm's work on public company audits. Common findings include:
- Insufficient substantive testing on material account balances
- Inadequate evaluation of management estimates or judgments
- Deficient audit documentation or work paper support
- Weaknesses in quality control or engagement supervision
Neither regulator publishes detailed violation narratives on public entity profiles; Verdica's sub-score reflects the aggregated quality and frequency of findings. A firm with zero PCAOB findings would score higher in that dimension; firms with repeated or systemic findings score lower. Movement in these scores happens as new inspection cycles complete and new findings are published.
Bottom line
McGowen Hurst Clark & Smith is a compliant, licensed provider with solid regulatory standing but with documented audit quality gaps flagged by the PCAOB. Before engaging the firm, verify the specific nature and recency of those findings by reviewing the PCAOB's public inspection reports, and confirm whether the firm has implemented corrective actions in subsequent cycles.