What Verdica's 656 score means for Ronald Forrester
Ronald Forrester's composite score of 656 out of 850 places him in the "elevated risk" band (580–669). This grade B score indicates that while Forrester meets baseline regulatory requirements, there are meaningful gaps in either licensing credentials, audit quality, or disciplinary history that warrant closer scrutiny before engagement.
A score in the elevated range suggests the provider is operational and registered but carries compliance concerns that don't rise to the level of high-risk status (which begins at 300). For business owners or organizations considering Ronald Forrester's services, the 656 score is a signal to conduct additional due diligence—verify current licensing, ask about the specific audit findings, and confirm that any historical issues have been remediated. This is not a red flag that should automatically disqualify consideration, but rather a yellow flag that justifies extra questions.
How the sub-scores break down
Verdica's composite score combines three dimensions:
License & Credentials (340 / 850): This sub-score is notably low and represents a significant drag on the overall composite. License and credential scores reflect whether the provider holds current, unencumbered professional licenses and relevant certifications in their state of practice. A score of 340 suggests either missing credentials, lapsed licenses, or restrictions on licensure. In New Jersey, accounting providers typically must hold a CPA license or equivalent registration. A weak credential score points to potential gaps in formal qualification or regulatory standing that directly impacts trustworthiness and legal ability to perform certain audit or accounting functions.
PCAOB Record (810 / 850): This is a strong sub-score. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspects audit firms and produces findings documents that rate audit quality, control effectiveness, and compliance with auditing standards. A PCAOB score of 810 indicates that Forrester's audit work has passed inspection with relatively few deficiencies noted in recent reviews. This is a meaningful positive signal and suggests that when audits are conducted, they meet professional standards reasonably well.
Disciplinary (850 / 850): This is a perfect score, meaning there are no recorded disciplinary actions, complaints, or sanctions from state boards, the SEC, or other regulators. A perfect disciplinary score indicates a clean historical record with no substantiated violations.
The profile reveals a mixed picture: strong audit quality and no disciplinary history, offset by concerning gaps in licensing or credentials.
What regulators in NJ track for accounting providers
New Jersey's state board of accountancy and the PCAOB enforce compliance through two separate but complementary mechanisms:
State Board Registration tracks whether a provider holds a valid CPA license, whether any restrictions or conditions apply to that license, and whether the provider maintains required continuing education. Licenses can be suspended, revoked, or placed under conditions if a provider violates state professional conduct rules or fails to meet renewal requirements. License & Credentials scores are primarily sourced from this state-level data.
PCAOB Audit Inspections evaluate firms that audit publicly traded companies. The PCAOB issues inspection reports that document deficiencies in audit procedures, internal quality controls, engagement supervision, and adherence to auditing standards. Firms with no significant deficiencies receive higher scores; those with repeated or severe quality issues see lower PCAOB ratings. The PCAOB record is forward-looking and quality-focused, not penalty-driven.
Disciplinary records capture formal enforcement actions—warnings, fines, license revocations, or suspensions—issued by state boards or the SEC. These are complaint-driven or standards-violation-driven and represent the most serious breaches.
For New Jersey accounting providers, all three data streams feed Verdica's risk model to create a holistic compliance picture.
Bottom line
Ronald Forrester's 656 score suggests adequate audit quality but a meaningful deficiency in licensing or credentials that requires clarification before engagement. Anyone considering his services should request current license verification, understand what the credential gap entails, and confirm whether it affects the scope of work he can legally perform. A call to the New Jersey State Board of Accountancy would quickly resolve the licensing question.