AI in Finance
Because Numbers That Don't Add Up… Add Up
In our ASX Top 20 Review , we set out to answer one simple question: Do the numbers actually add up?
The answer, was a resounding yes — with an impressive 99.72% accuracy rate across more than 24,000 calculations.
But behind that number is a much bigger story.
Because while the reports were impressively accurate, what’s rarely discussed is just how much time and cost goes into getting those numbers perfect. Or what it costs when something slips through.
So we decided to run the numbers.
🕰️ The Time Behind Every Total
Here’s what we’ve observed in our ASX Top 20 review and a career’s worth of half-year end and year-end crunches:
Checking and fixing numbers is a hidden workload — and a surprisingly large one.
Assumptions: Based on Accurate Digits’ review of the ASX Top 20’s most recent 4D and Half-Year reports. Time is estimated at 7.5 seconds per check — roughly the time it takes to manually verify a number with a calculator. We’ve used a $100/hour company cost, based on a $128k accountant salary plus 40% on-costs and overheads. Hourly rates for auditors reflect an estimate of costs charged to the company for the level of resource performing this work.
And that’s per reviewer. Multiply across drafts, teams, and review cycles — and the cost compounds fast.
Assumptions: Efficient Case: 2 versions, reviewed once by company and once by auditor; Medium Case: 3 versions, 2 reviewers per side; Conservative Case: 5 versions, 3 reviewers per side
It’s rare a company hits the worst-case scenario — but it’s not inconceivable. For a single interim report, almost $50,000 could be spent on manual verification.
💰 Curious what it’s costing your team?
Use our free ROI Calculator to benchmark your costs and see how much time and money your team could save reviewing its next set of financials.
More likely, most ASX 20 businesses sit in the $1,000 to $6,000 range — per report — just to verify numbers that could be checked in moments.
🧯 What Happens When Something Slips Through?
Most errors don’t make headlines. But even small mistakes can leave a mark:
While small typographical issues may not trigger a market reaction, they can still undermine investor confidence — and raise uncomfortable questions:
- 📉 Investors, Analysts and the Board questioning your attention to detail
- 📬 Time spent resolving queries from Investor and Analysts chasing clarification
- 🧾 Corrections and re-releases (that no one wants to write), dragging credibility into the spotlight for employees, for auditors and for leadership.
- 🧠 And internally: “What else did we miss?”
It’s not just about the numbers being wrong.
It’s about what the numbers signal.
🧠 Accuracy Used to Cost Time - Now It Doesn't Have To
Every finance team knows the hours that go into getting the numbers right. The checks, the re-checks, the small adjustments to make everything line up. It adds up — in time, in cost, and in mental energy.
That’s the price of accuracy.
But inaccuracy carries its own cost: confusion, rework, lost confidence — both inside the team and outside, with stakeholders who rely on those numbers.
The good news? That trade-off isn’t as sharp as it used to be.
Today, there are tools that can help — like Accurate Digits — designed to handle the mechanical checks, so your team can focus on the bigger picture. It’s not about replacing your people. It’s about supporting them, streamlining the review process, and giving back time where it counts most.
See how our Accurate Digits helps with financial reporting accuracy.
For disclaimer and usage terms of this research, see the full statement here.
