ima U.S. SALARY SURVEY Understanding and Implementing Internet 2014 E-Commerce 2014 U.S. Salary Survey

2014 U.S. Salary Survey ima Rainy Days Persist The Association of Accountants and Financial Professionals in Business Understanding and Implementing Internet 2014 E-Commerce U.S. SALARY SURVEY

2014 U.S. Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist July 2014 Institute of Management Accountants 10 Paragon Drive, Suite 1 Montvale, NJ, 07645 www.imanet.org/salary_survey

2014 U.S. Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist About IMA IMA, the association of accountants and financial professionals in business, is one of the largest and most respected associations focused exclusively on advancing the management accounting profession. Globally, IMA supports the profession through research, the CMA (Certified Management Accountant) program, continuing education, networking, and advocacy of the highest ethical business practices. IMA has a global network of more than 70,000 members in 120 countries and 300 professional and student chapters. Headquartered in Montvale, N.J., USA, IMA provides localized services through its four global regions: The Americas, Asia/Pacific, Europe, and Middle East/Africa. For more information about IMA, please visit www.imanet.org.

2014 U.S. Salary Survey Rainy Days Persist Lee Schiffel, CGFM Lee Schiffel, CGFM, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of accounting in the College of Business at Valparaiso University. She holds a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Missouri-Columbia. You can reach her at (219) 464-6788 or lee.schiffel@valpo.edu. Coleen Wilder Coleen Wilder, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business at Valparaiso University. She teaches statistics and management courses at the undergraduate level and operations management in the MBA program. Coleen holds a Ph.D. in operations management from Illinois Institute of Technology.

Rainy Days Persist Like a steadily falling rain, the results from the 25th annual IMA Salary Survey may dampen your outlook on the future. Economists tell us the Great Recession ended in 2009, but a general malaise continued to envelope Main Street, if not Wall Street. While IMA members weathered those years on stable footing, respondents to this year s survey paint a dreary picture of the 2013 salary landscape for accountants and finance professionals. In last year s survey, we wondered if the winds of change have completely shifted toward a positive direction or whether the future will continue to feel like rough seas. We now have our answer: Batten down the hatches before wading into the 2013 details, but keep an eye open for the occasional ray of sunlight. Once again, we look to the annual salary survey to see how IMA members are faring in these comple times. With a notable contraction in both average salary and average total compensation, the gains of 2012 have been offset and in some cases exceeded in 2013. Many participants reported decreases in both average salary and average total compensation. The average salary of members responding to the 2013 survey was $108,455, a decrease of $4,170 from the 2012 average of $112,625. Average total compensation decreased from $135,654 in 2012 to $125,734 this year, a difference of $9,920. For the first time in six years, both changes are statistically significant. 1 Univariate statistics for the five most recent salary surveys (2009-2013) are shown in Table 1. Changes from 2012 to 2013 in both average salary and average total compensation are negative for all levels (mean, median, 20th percentile, and 80th percentile), and all are statistically significant at Table 1: Comparison of Univariate Statistics for 2009 2013 Average Salary Years Range Mean Median 20th percentile 80th percentile 2013 $23,000 $1,000,000 $108,455 $ 96,000 $69,900 $136,000 2012 $ 6,000 $ 650,000 $112,625 $100,000 $72,000 $146,000 2011 $20,000 $ 600,000 $109,001 $ 98,026 $71,000 $138,000 2010 $28,000 $ 900,000 $109,265 $ 98,000 $72,000 $139,000 2009 $21,000 $ 465,000 $105,850 $ 94,900 $70,000 $135,500 Average Total Compensation 2013 $23,000 $1,800,000 $125,734 $105,500 $73,140 $160,500 2012 $ 6,000 $1,030,000 $135,654 $110,000 $75,000 $176,000 2011 $30,000 $ 900,000 $129,591 $106,965 $75,000 $165,000 2010 $28,000 $1,000,000 $128,486 $105,000 $74,500 $160,000 2009 $21,000 $ 900,000 $123,357 $100,700 $72,500 $154,600 How Did We Conduct the Survey? In 2013, the IMA salary survey was conducted online for the first time. Approximately one week prior to the start of the survey, all IMA members received an e-mail informing them that the 2013 salary survey would be online and encouraging them to watch their e-mail for an invitation to participate. Requests to participate were e-mailed to a random sample of 5,158 IMA members in early December 2013. Reminder e-mails were sent one week and two weeks after the initial invitation. The sample was designed to represent the IMA membership in the United States geographically. The sample size was selected to allow for a 95% confidence level of estimating the population mean within plus or minus 3% based on expected return rates. A total of 1,695 questionnaires were returned, yielding an overall response rate of 33%. Of this number, there were 1,489 5 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Table 2: Average IMA Member 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Median age 47 49 48 50 48 Female 36% 33% 34% 32% 34% Male 64% 67% 66% 68% 66% Degrees Baccalaureate 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% Advanced 52% 54% 53% 54% 53% Years of experience Current position 6 7 7 6 6 Current employer 10 10 10 10 10 In field 20 21 20 21 20 Family status Married 79% 82% 81% 82% 81% Spouse employed outside home 66% 64% 63% 66% 64% Percent with children 57% 58% 58% 66% 65% Average number of children 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 Certification percentages Any certification 70% 72% 71% 72% 70% CMA 53% 55% 54% 56% 54% CPA 27% 34% 34% 35% 36% CFM 7% 9% 8% 9% 9% usable questionnaires representing 28.9% of persons surveyed. This response rate allows for a 95% confidence level for all data on the survey because those persons responding to the survey represented the IMA membership proportionately for those demographics maintained by IMA. The response rate for the 2013 survey increased 10% from 2012 and is slightly higher than the rates of 2010 and 2009, which were 32% and 30%, respectively. Historically, response rates have fallen from 41%/38% total/usable responses in 1999 to last year s low of 23%/22%. the 95% confidence level. The 2013 average salary amounts are also below those reported in 2010, eliminating gains made in both 2012 and 2011. The losses weren t distributed equally across all income levels. The largest decrease (6.8%) occurred at the 80th percentile, where average salary decreased by $10,000. The 20th percentile experienced the smallest decrease (2.9% or $2,100). Decreases in the mean and median were 3.7% and 4%, respectively. The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.9% during 2013, a much better result than the contraction that occurred in accounting salaries. Demographic information, providing insight into the characteristics of the average IMA member in 2013, is shown in Table 2. We rely on these demographics to make comparisons between this year s compensation figures and those of the prior 24 years and to identify changes, track trends, and provide insight regarding the compensation of the IMA membership. 2 While the profile this year is very similar to the past five years, here area few highlights for 2013: The median age dropped from 49 to 47 years old. The all-time high of 50 was reached in 2010. There had been a gradual increase from 2005 to 2010. Since then the average IMA member has gotten a bit younger. In 2013, we received 64% of our responses from men and 36% from women, a proportion that has remained relatively consistent for the last five years (ranging from 64%-68% male). 6 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Virtually all (99%) participants have earned a baccalaureate degree, a percentage that has remained constant across the last five years. And 52% of the 2013 participants have an advanced degree, a 2% decrease from last year. The average number of years in the field decreased by one year to 20, while the number of years with current employer stayed at 10. The years in current position dropped to six. The percentage of respondents who are married decreased 3%, dropping to 79% from the 2012 all-time high of 82%. Spouses employed outside the home increased 2% from last year, returning to the all-time high of 66% from 2010. The percent of participants with children dropped to 57%, a decrease of 1%. This percentage is consistent with the results from 2005. The only exception was a spike to 65%-66% in 2009 and 2010. 70% of participants have at least one professional certification. This is a 2% decrease. The percentage of participants with the CMA certification dropped 2% to a total of 53%. Partic pants who have earned the CPA dropped from 34% to 27%, and CFM holders dropped from 9% to 7%. Nature of Compensation Measures Consistent with prior surveys, the definitions for the compensation terms are: Average salary the mean of all responding members annual salary. Average total compensation the mean of all responding members salary plus any additional compensation (bonuses, profit sharing, etc.). Average household income mean of all members salary plus additional compensation plus spouse s base salary. Table 3: Nature of Additional Compensation Sources Number Percentage Bonus 864 58% Profit sharing 187 13% Stock options 47 3% Overload/Summer school teaching/ Research 54 4% Other 189 13% Auto or auto allowance 18 1% Overtime 31 2% Tuition reimbursement 10 1% The proportion of IMA members who received additional compensation was 75%, up 75% of respondents reported additional income. from 73% last year. Since 2000, the proportion has varied between 67%-76%. The only exception is 2001, when 90% of participants reported some form of additional compensation. The sources of the additional compensation are presented in Table 3. Consistent with prior years, bonuses and profit sharing account for a majority of the additional compensation. The proportion of participants receiving either a bonus or profit sharing dropped from 77% in 2012 to 71% in 2013. While the percentage of individuals reporting bonuses did increase from 56% in 2012 to 58% this year it s still below the 67% reported in 2010. Profit sharing also fell to 13% this year vs. 21% in 2012. 7 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Both the median and mean amounts of additional compensation dropped in 2013, ending a three-year run of increases. The median amount was $10,500 (a decrease of $2,500 from last year), and the mean amount was $24,786 ($7,736 drop from last year). The percentage of women receiving additional compensation rose from 66% to 68%, while the percentage of men receiving it dropped from 77% to 71%. Women s average additional compensation for 2013 improved to 61% of men s ($14,462 vs. $28,725), an increase from 57% in 2012 and 43% in 2011. Male/Female Compensation The discrepancy in compensation between men and women provided the impetus to begin this survey in 1989 and continues to be one of the primary issues we examine. Our measure of the salary gap is the percent of women s salary in proportion to men s salary. For example, if women earn $80,000 and men earn $100,000, the salary gap is 80%. This year the gap is 78.9% in salary and 75.8% in total compensation. These represent tiny improvements from last year, but neither of the differences from 2012 when the salary gap was 78% and the total compensation gap was 73% is statistically significant. Historically, the smallest gap in salary was 80% in 2006, and the smallest gap in total compensation was 76% in 2005. Figure 1 provides a comparison of the average compensation of men vs. women for the past five years. Again, the discrepancies between men and women are statistically significant, a trend that persists across all 25 years of the survey. In 2010, a trend of small improvements in the salary gap (0.3% to 0.8% each year) began to emerge, providing a slight suggestion that the gap would eventually close. In addition, the gap for total compensation improved 2.7% over last year, building on last year s improvement of 1.7%. The total compensation gap in 2013 is wider than that of 2007, so gains from the time period have been reversed. In dollar terms, the salary gap decreased slightly from $26,470 last year to $24,735 this year. The dollar difference in total compensation fell slightly for the third straight year from $39,994 in 2012 to Figure 1: Average Salary and Total Compensation by Gender $33,298 in 2013. Further evidence of the salary gap is reflected Women s Salary Women s Compensation in Figure 2, where 19% of the men have salaries Men s Salary Men s Compensation of $150,000 or more while only 6% of the women have salaries greater than $150,000. $150,00 $130,000 $110,000 The proportion of women exceeds the proportion of men in all categories $90,000 $70,000 below $90,000. The median salary for men is $102,550, while the median salary for women is $85,000, a $50,000 $30,000 $10,000 difference of $17,550. The median for women dropped $3,000 from 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 8 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Figure 2: Percentage of Men and Women in Salary Ranges Men Women 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under 50 50 70 70 90 90 110 110 130 130-150 Over 150 (In Thousands of Dollars) Figure 3: Average Salary and Total Compensation by Age and Gender Women s Salary Women s Compensation Men s Salary Men s Compensation $160,000 $120,000 $80,000 $40,000 0 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 last year, and the median for men dropped $7,450. This difference between men and women is statistically significant, but the changes from 2012 are not. Figure 3 compares average compensation by gender and age. Consistent with prior years, the average salary and average total compensation for women are less than those of their male counterparts for every age category. The only time women s compensation exceeded men s was in 2004 for the 19-29 age group. Not only is women s average salary less than that of the men in every age group, but the average total compensation for women in every age category is less than the average salary of men (i.e., without adding the men s additional compensation). Different impacts across the age categories have been present over the last few years, with most age groups having some increases one year with small changes or decreases the next year. This year the changes from 2012 are primarily decreases. Last year, both genders in their 20s and 30s were flat or down. This year, both genders in their 20s and 30s experienced decreases in the range of $1,000 to $3,000, except for men in their 30s, who suffered large decreases 9 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

$12,368 in salary and $16,614 in total compensations. Both genders in the 60+ group reported decreases of approximately $10,000 or more in total compensation. In 2013, women in their 50s had a negligible change in salary, and men that age received an increase of $2,034; both genders reported decreases in additional compensation. Individuals in the 60+ group experienced the same change pattern. In contrast, both genders in their 60s or older reported increases over $10,000 in salary last year. Historically, the salary gap is smallest in the younger age categories and widens with each older range. In 2012, the women in their 40s became an exception to that trend by having a salary gap (84%) that was closer than that of women in their 30s (78%). This year sees a return to the typical pattern. The salary gap of the women in their 30s improved to 87%, but the gap for women in their 40s is 82%. Consistent with early career salaries being fairly comparable between the genders, the salary gap this year for women in their 20s was 90% (women earned $0.90 for each $1 a man earned). As employees age, the salary gap becomes more pronounced, with women in their 50s and older earning only $0.76 for each $1 earned by men in the same age range (76% salary gap). The same trend applies to the total compensation gap, but women in their 20s start with an 87% compensation gap, and, by the time they are 60 or older, the gap has increased to 70%. Across the recent years of our study, compensation gap tends to be larger than the salary gap at the same age level. Why the difference is exacerbated for average total compensation is open for conjecture. Table 4: Compensation by Years in the Field Average Salary Women Men All Women as a % of Men 1 to 5 $ 64,299 [45] $ 72,912 [102] $ 70,276 88.2% 6 to 10 $ 77,596 [88] $ 92,473 [147] $ 86,902 83.9% 11 to 15 $ 86,311 [82] $109,919 [118] $100,240 78.5% 16 to 20 $ 97,853 [79] $117,451 [117] $109,552 83.3% More than 20 $104,137 [241] $136,833 [460] $125,592 76.1% Average Total Compensation 1 to 5 $ 68,069 [45] $ 81,170 [102] $ 77,160 83.9% 6 to 10 $ 83,442 [88] $108,364 [147] $ 99,031 77.0% 11 to 15 $ 97,234 [82] $127,303 [118] $114,975 76.4% 16 to 20 $111,714 [79] $134,372 [117] $125,240 83.1% More than 20 $119,339 [241] $163,111 [460] $148,063 73.2% Number of responses shown in brackets. 10 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

As stated previously, female participants are younger than their male counterparts. This is borne out by a comparison of the proportion of women and men in each of the age categories. The proportion of women in the three younger categories (19 through 49) exceeds that of the men (57% vs. 45%). The 2013 and 2012 percentages are almost identical. In 2010, the difference was only 3% (57% vs. 54%) in the three younger categories. The impact of gender on compensation can also be seen in Table 4, which presents compensation by gender in five groupings of years in the field. Last year, women participants earned more total compensation than men did in two of the five categories, ending a long run of men always earning more than women. The last column of the table displays women s salary and compensation as a percentage of men s, making it easy to spot any instances of women earning more than men. This year, the closest women come to matching men s total salary is the 1-5 years grouping, where their salary is 88.2% of men s salary. The lowest category is the participants with 20 or more years in the field, where women earn 76.1% of the salary of men in that group. While this year has three groups exceeding 83%, an improvement from last year, these numbers still show a decline from 2012, when women in the 1-5 years group had an average salary of 104.5% and the 6-10 years group was second at 92.5%. In terms of total compensation, this year sees a return to men earning more than women in every category. Last year, the women in the 1-5 and 6-10 years categories had higher average total compensation than their male counterparts (108.2% and 105.5%, respectively). This year, the percentages are 83.9% and 77%, respectively. The good news is that the other three categories improved. Last year, the closest of those three groups was women in the field for more than 20 years. They earned 70.5% compared to the men. All three groups exceed that percentage this year, with women in the 16-20 group earning more than 83% of men s compensation. The three-year average for total compensation shows greater divergence over time than the pattern for average salary. Based on this year s results, the rolling three-year average (each year the oldest year is dropped and the current year added) in total compensation for women has improved from 88% to 92% in the 1-5 years of service category. It stayed at 86% for the 6-10 years group, while the 8% increase in 2013 for women in the 11-15 years group improved that group s three-year average from 67% to 69%. The 16-20 and more than 20 categories both had a three-year average of 72% last year. Their reported increases this year improved those amounts to 76% and 73%, respectively. A trend analysis indicates that men with more than 10 years in the field establish a pattern of higher average salary and total compensation than women. It will be interesting to watch these measures to judge the resiliency of this trend across a longer time period and also to Figure 4: Management Level By Gender see if this cohort will continue to earn comparable amounts as they increase their years of service. Men All Women Figure 4 compares the proportion of women and men in various management levels. 40% We continue to have higher proportions of men in the top level and higher proportions 30% of women in the entry level and from academia. In 2013 and 2012, we had more 20% men at the senior level and more women at the middle level. The proportions in these 10% two groups tend to fluctuate across time, however, so it s premature to label these twoyear similarities as trends. There were more 0% men in the middle level and more women in Top Senior Middle Entry Academic the senior level in 2011, while proportions were even in 2010. 11 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Middle management has had the most fluctuations in terms of the number of both men and women in the category. This year the percentage of men was 33.9%, an increase from 2012 s 31.2%. Male percentages in 2011 and 2010 were 37.4% and 35.7%, respectively. In the other management categories, men increased 2% or less each year from 2010 to 2012. The changes in men s proportions this year are larger in the top category (dropped 9.4%) and the senior category (increased 6.7%). The proportion of women this year increased in three categories: 4.5% in senior management, 3.7% in middle management, and 1.1% in academia. Women s proportions decreased 3.3% in entry level, 3.2% in top level, and 2.8% in other. Figure 5 presents the average salary and average total compensation by gender for each of the four management levels. The one constant takeaway from this figure is that men continue to receive more in average salary and in average total compensation than women at each level of management. We find tiny indications that women are gaining ground (or dollars) here and there, but those small advances are usually short-lived. The average salary for top- and senior-level men increased from 2012, as did that for Figure 5: Compensation by Management Level and Gender senior-level women. Only senior-level men had a higher increase in average total compensation. Women s Salary Women s Compensation In the entry/lower level, women s Men s Salary Men s Compensation average salary declined $927 vs. a $15 decrease in 2012, and average total compensation decreased by $1,430 vs. a $981 $200,000 decrease in 2012. Rising prices combined $175,000 with decreasing salary and total compensation lead to the financial stress we hear so $125,000 $150,000 many of our countrymen and women trying to resolve. Although entry-/lower-level $100,000 men still receive higher average salaries $75,000 and average total compensation than $50,000 women in that group, they experienced $25,0000 larger decreases than the women did: $0 Their average salary decreased $4,149, Lower/Entry Middle Senior Top and average total compensation dropped $5,516. The salary gap for this level of management improved to 97% from 93% last year, while the compensation gap improved to 96% from 91% last year. In terms of dollars, lower-/entry-level women earned only $1,858 less than men in average salary and $3,226 less in average total compensation. Both men and women in middle management reported decreases in average salary and total compensation, with men sustaining greater losses than women. Women earned $7,679 less salary and $4,629 less in total compensation. The average salary for men decreased by $13,557 (almost double what women lost), and average total compensation decreased by $20,287. Even though men in this group saw much bigger decreases from last year than women did, their average salary and total compensation before this year were so much higher than those of their female counterparts that the salary gap only improved to 85% (from 82% in 2012), and the gap in average total compensation, at 86%, didn t change. These gaps mean that women earned $15,292 less than men in average salary and $17,328 less in average total compensation For the third consecutive year, the senior level reported increases in average salary for both men and women and in total compensation for men. Salary was up almost $2,576 for women and $6,870 for men. Total compensation for men went up $5,142, but women reported a decline of $6,821. Both the salary gap and compensation 12 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

gap widened this year, from 81% to 79% for salary and from 81% to 74% for total compensation. In dollar terms, this means women earned $27,985 less in average salary and $42,884 less in total compensation than men did. Top-level women experienced a substantial loss in average salary and an even larger loss in average total compensation. Top-level men reported an average salary increase comparable to the loss for women ($8,867 increase vs. $8,688 decrease, respectively). The top-level women s salary decrease of $8,688 was compounded by a $25,408 decrease in total compensation, preserving about $7,000 of the 2012 increase in total compensation. Offsetting the $8,867 average salary increase for men, average total compensation dropped by $5,270, leaving them $3,497 better off for the year. These changes elevate men to an average salary of $159,922 vs. $117,118 for women and an average total compensation of $190,192 vs. $130,397 for women. The salary gap for top-level women widened from 83% in 2012 to 73% this year, while the total compensation gap expanded from 80% to 69%. These gaps mean women received $42,804 less salary, on average, than men and $59,785 less total compensation. Table 5 presents compensation for women and men according to participants perceived level of supervisory responsibility. Women reported decreases for both average salary and average total compensation in three of Table 5: Compensation by Supervisory Responsibility Women Men All Category Average Salary Compensation Average Salary Compensation Average Salary Compensation 1. No supervisory responsibility $ 79,562 $ 85,008 [152] $ 85,590 $ 95,063 [222] $ 83,140 $ 90,976 [374] 2. Some supervisory responsibility but not head of a major department $ 90,503 $104,154 [167] $104,520 $117,631 [257] $ 98,999 $112,323 [424] 3. Head of a major department but do not Figure 5: Amount of Most Recent Raise (Percentage) report directly to CEO/ Board $108,816 $127,756 [96] $138,296 $171,255 [203] $128,831 $157,289 [299] 4. Head of a major department and report directly to CEO/ Board $103,752 $116,838 [104] $143,130 $171,420 [234] $131,014 $154,626 [338] 5. Little or no supervisory responsibility and report directly to CEO/Board $ 73,168 $ 76,229 [17] $111,164 $122,179 [29] $ 97,122 $105,197 [46] Number of responses shown in brackets. 13 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

the five categories this year. The two categories showing increases were individuals with no supervisory responsibility (increase of $2,553 in salary and $1,181 in total compensation) and head of a major department but do not report directly to the CEO/Board ($5,011 in salary and $12,840 in total compensation). Declines in the other categories range from $112 to $8,862 for average salary and from $2,886 to $18,330 for average total compensation. Men reported declines of average salary in four of the five categories (only Head of a major department and report directly to CEO/Board reported an increase, $973), and average total compensation decreased in all five categories. Their drops in average salary range from $468 to $8,751, while those in average total compensation range from $348 to $31,283.The highest average salary and total compensation for women this year is in supervisory category 3 (Head of a major department but do not report directly to CEO/Board). This year men report the highest average salaries and average total compensation in supervisory category 4 (Head of a major department and report directly to CEO/Board). Category 5 (Little or no supervisory responsibility and report directly to CEO/Board) typically has a small number of participants: 29 men and 10 women for the last two years. The average salary gap narrowed to 66% this year from 61% in 2012. The average total compensation gap remained constant at 62%. Given the small number of participants in the category, these figures may be due more to sample size than economic factors. For all five categories, the compensation of women participants is less than that of men participants. Women s compensation is closest to men s in categories 1 and 2 with average salaries of 93% and 87%, respectively. The percentage is 89% in total compensation for both categories. Category 3 (Head of a major department but no direct report to CEO/Board) gaps are 79% for average salary and 75% for average total compensation. After showing a reduced salary gap in the prior two years, the gap for category 4 (Head of a major department and report directly to CEO/Board) widened from 79% last year to 72% this year. The total compensation gap widened from 74% last year to 68% this year. A majority of the participants have supervisory responsibility (categories 2, 3, and 4), and there are proportionately more men than women (73% of men vs. 68% of women) in these positions, which is a reduction of 5% each from last year. The difference in supervisory roles across genders rose from last year s 4%, a historical low for the survey, to 5% this year. To summarize, we have examined a number of differences between the compensation of women and men: Compensation by age category (Figure 3). Compensation by years in field categories (Table 4). Compensation by management level (Figure 5). Compensation by supervisory responsibility (Table 5). Virtually across the board, women s compensation is less than men s, and these differences are statistically significant. As is found throughout industries in the U.S., the salary gap between women and men remains a fact of life. Compensation and Certification Participants holding a professional certification including the CMA (Certified Management Accountant), CPA (Certified Public Accountant), and CFM (Certified Financial Manager) represent 70% of the sample. The differences in average salary and average total compensation between participants who hold some form of certification and those without one increased again this year. Individuals with the CMA, CPA, or both earned an average 14 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

salary of $120,306 in 2013, a decline of 0.7% from the $121,165 earned in 2012. In comparison, participants with neither of those certifications (38% of respondents) earned an average salary of $88,196, a 4.7% decline from the $92,570 earned in 2012. The salary gap among those with and without the certifications has increased from 31% in 2012 to 36.4% this year. In dollar terms, the average noncertified individual earned $32,110 less salary than certified individuals, $3,515 more than 2012 when the difference was $28,595. The average total compensation also differs between those with and without the certifications. The average total compensation for those with a certification this year is $141,092, which is 42.2% ($41,853) more than for those without certification ($99,239). That 42.2% total compensation gap is similar to last year s 41%. Average total compensation decreased 4.9% ($7,220) for certified participants (CMA, CPA, or both) and 5.9% ($6,258) for noncertified participants. The impact of certification on the average salary and average total compensation is illustrated in Table 6. Certified participants generally report higher earnings. As indicated in the table, this holds true for all participants and for each of the five age categories presented there. Table 6: Compensation by Age and Certification Average Salary Age Range All No CMA or CPA CMA CPA Both CMA and CPA 19 29 [97] $ 62,549 [59] $ 56,097 [28] $ 69,284 [3] $ 64,684 [7] $ 89,071 30 39 [290] $ 84,924 [149] $ 75,143 [86] $ 95,295 [24] $ 95,310 [31] $ 95,122 40 49 [417] $113,539 [149] $ 91,780 [160] $115,196 [28] $130,550 [80] $144,795 50 59 [447] $122,706 [127] $104,031 [168] $130,668 [50] $128,959 [102] $129,779 60 and over [185] $120,395 [64] $108,408 [59] $128,353 [24] $130,105 [38] $122,094 All [1,436] $108,053 [548] $ 88,196 [501] $115,952 [129] $121,762 [258] $128,035 Average Total Compensation 19 29 [97] $ 67,937 [59] $ 60,397 [28] $ 76,935 [3] $ 68,263 [7] $ 95,357 30 39 [290] $ 95,773 [149] $ 81,891 [86] $112,916 [24] $102,443 [31] $109,772 40 49 [417] $133,036 [149] $102,058 [160] $132,615 [28] $130,550 [80] $185,399 50 59 [447] $143,292 [127] $119,891 [168] $152,009 [50] $150,680 [80] $153,676 60 and over [185] $139,362 [64] $127,895 [59] $154,087 [24] $152,256 [102] $134,322 All [1,436] $125,121 [548] $ 99,239 [501] $135,153 [129] $141,726 [38] $153,804 Number of responses shown in brackets. 15 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

For the seventh straight year, the average compensation increases for each age category through the 40-49 group. Before last year, the 60 and over groups had been trailing behind the respective 50-59 groups in both average salary and average total compensation. In 2012, however, there were several areas where the 60 and over groups had higher averages. This year suggests a return to the past, with two 60 and over groups (No CMA or CPA and the CMAs) having a higher average total compensation than their respective group of 50-to 59-year-olds. In all five age categories, the average salaries and total compensation for those with no CMA or CPA are less than for their certified counterparts. Thus, the differential enjoyed as a result of obtaining professional certification continues to follow individuals throughout their careers and affects their earning power. The dollar amount of the certification bonus appears at the very beginning of participants careers and increases with age. In 2013, certified individuals ages 19-29 earned $16,470 more in salary and $19,247 more in total compensation than their noncertified peers. This year, the group that had the highest differential in average salary ($33,856) and average total compensation ($48,201) is the 40-49 group. The one thing that has been very consistent is that each certification appears to add around $10,000 or more in additional compensation compared to noncertified individuals. Table 6 also allows us to rank the impact that certification (CMA, CPA, or both) has on average salary and average total compensation. The double bonus of the CMA/CPA dual certification continues to appear in the data, and both certifications are still a positive influence in the salary calculator at the end of this report. The dual certification earns the largest average salary and total compensation in the 19-29 and 40-49 age groups, and it also earns the largest total compensation for those in the 50-59 age group. For the 60 and over group, the CPA alone edges out the CMA ($130,105 vs. 128,353) for the highest in average salary, but the CMA offers a distinct advantage ($12,361 more than the CPA and $19,764 more than dual certification) in total compensation. Three of the participants in the 19-29 group hold a CPA, and seven hold both a CMA and a CPA. Last year, both categories had only three participants each. Those with just a CPA earned $64,684, while the dual-certification participants had an average salary of $89,071. Those possessing a CMA alone earned $69,284, while those with neither certification had an average salary of $56,097. Given that students in their last year of an accounting undergraduate program can sit for the CMA but not the CPA, the CMA offers a way for those entering the profession to increase their value in the job market and begin to reap the benefits that a certification has on income that much sooner. When comparing all respondents with only the CMA or only the CPA, the overall average salary for those with the CMA is about $5,800 less than the CPA. Yet the average salary of CMAs does exceed that of CPAs in two of the five age ranges: In the 19-29 age category, the average salary of the CMAs is $4,601 more than that of the CPAs. In the 50-59 age range, CMAs have an average salary $1,709 higher than CPAs. In the 30-39 and 40-49 age ranges, the CPAs garner higher average salary than the CMAs by $15 and $15,353, respectively. The CMAs report more total compensation in the 19-29 age range ($8,672), the 30-39 age 16 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

range ($10,472), and the 60+ range ($12,361). The average total compensation of the CPAs exceeds that of the CMAs in the 40-49 (by $18,065) and 50-59 (by $247) age ranges. We advise the reader to be cautious in drawing conclusions from this data. Across the eight years that we have reported it, there has been a good amount of variability. It s critical to remember that the CMA and CPA represent different skill sets and that in any given year the market may demand more or less of that skill set. What is clear is that both the CMA and the CPA continue to maintain their value and that those values are quite comparable. The dual-certification holder would presumably have a wider range of skills, which may be particularly important in the earlier years of someone s career. The one thing that has been very consistent is that each certification appears to add around $10,000 or more in additional compensation compared to noncertified individuals. The pool of respondents who are CFMs remains small (7% this year), and they fall in the 40-49 and older ranges. Given the small sample size, including their responses in Table 6 would potentially compromise participants confidentiality. Compensation and Degrees Table 7 shows that IMA members are well educated. An overwhelming majority of participants (99.4%) have at least a bachelor s degree. The average compensation for 2013 increases as education increases, a trend that has been seen in most years. Participants who have less than a bachelor s degree (0.6% of this year s participants) reported an increase of $11,140 in average salary and $25,492 in average total compensation. This group reported decreases for the two prior years a rather large decrease in 2012 and a smaller one in 2011. The number of participants in this educational category is very small, so these results should be interpreted with caution. Those with doctorates, representing 4.6% of participants, earned $130,190 in 2013. This is an increase of 2.6% ($3,306) from 2012 and is the highest average salary among the four educational levels. On the downside, those with doctorate degrees had an average total compensation of $138,790 this year, a decline of 9.2% ($14,085) compared to last year. The baccalaureate degree group s average salary of $98,095 represents a decrease of 16% ($9,066) from 2012. Participants with a master s degree received average salary of $117,190, a decrease from 2012 of 0.1% ($171). Both categories also reported Table 7: Compensation by Highest Degree Obtained Highest Degree Average Salary Total Highest Degree Compensation decreases in average total compensation: $5,466 for baccalaureates and $14,019 for those with a master s degree. Less than baccalaureate $ 80,574 $ 96,351 [9] Baccalaureate $ 98,095 $112,873 [702] Master s $117,090 $137,766 [707] Doctorate $130,190 $138,790 [68] Number of responses shown in brackets. Compensation by Organization Structure Table 8 offers a comparison of average salary by two size factors number of employees at one location (referred to 17 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

as location ) and number of employees for the entire organization (referred to as organization ). From 2011 through 2013, the lowest average salaries and total compensation have been at the locations and organizations with 10-24 employees. Otherwise, there hasn t been a clear pattern over time for average salary based on size factors by either location or organization. Participants at a location or organization with 5,000 or more employees had the highest average salaries, reporting an average salary of $138,400 by location and $114,005 by organization. The only location size that had an increase in average salary compared to 2012 was 5,000 or more employees. For organization size, only the 2,500 to 4,999 group increased from 2012. The rest of the groups, by location and organization, saw lower average salaries compared to 2012. The differences between the largest and smallest average salary within location and within organization for 2013 are $48,760 and $22,314. The 2012 differences across the size categories were approximately $25,000 by location and $18,000 by organization. Percentage changes in 2013 average salaries within location ranged from a 16.3% increase (the next highest change was a 2.2% decrease) to a 12.6% decrease; within organization size, changes ranged from 0.3% increase (the next highest organization-wide change was 0.7% decrease) to a 12.3% decrease. Table 9 displays average compensation by industry using standard industry classification (SIC) codes. Since 2011, the three largest groups of survey participants represent the same three industries: manufacturing, services, and finance, insurance, and real estate. Manufacturing was represented by 27% of the participants, where the average salary and average total compensation ranked fourth and third, respectively up from eighth and seventh in 2012. The second largest contingent works in the service industry (24%), which ranks third in salary and sixth in total compensation. This is an improvement in rankings from last year when the services industry was ranked 10th and 11th, respectively. Public accounting, a part of the service industry, ranks first in both average salary and total compensation for 2013. In 2012, it ranked third in both measures. The third-largest group is finance, insurance, and real estate, represented by 7% of the participants (down from 9% in 2012). The averages for participants in that group ranked sixth in salary (down from fourth) and second (no change) in total compensation. Government is the only SIC reporting increases from 2012 in both average salary and average total compensation. The increases were $2,172 (2.4%) and $1,359 (1.5%), respectively. Services reported a 1.6% increase in average salary but a 1.8% decrease in average total compensation. All other major SIC areas suffered declines in both average salary and average total compensation. The 2013 salary decreases range from manufacturing s 2.5% ($2,861) to nonclassifiable s 40.5% ($60,977); total compensation decreases range from service s 1.8% ($2,310) to nonclassifiable s 40.5% ($60,997). Table 8: Salary by Location and Organization Size Number of People Employed at Locaction Average Salary Employed in Entire Organization Average Salary 1 to 9 $100,969 [79] $100,767 [44] 10 to 24 $ 89,640 [119] $ 91,691 [70] 25 to 99 $101,631 [309] $ 96,784 [145] 100 to 499 $110,377 [488] $111,016 [291] 500 to 999 $107,807 [166] $105,071 [104] 1,000 to 2,499 $115,797 [170] $104,692 [151] 2,500 to 4,999 $118,101 [90] $111,356 [129] 5,000 plus $138,400 [67] $114,005 [550] Number of responses shown in brackets. 18 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

SIC Average Salary A closer examination of the subsectors within the services SICs reveals decreases of 6.3% in average salary and 4.6% in average total compensation for those in medical health services. The other service SIC codes group has decreases of 1% and 4.9%, respectively. Average salary increased by $18,556 (15.1%) in public accounting and by $8,233 (8.6%) in educational services. Educational services also reported an 8.9% increase in average total compensation, while public accounting had a negligible decrease of 0.5%. Table 10 presents compensation by business structure. Other than a 12% increase in the average salary and a 9% increase in average total compensation for proprietorships, all changes for 2013 were negative. Average salary decreases ranged from 0.8% (partnership) to 9% (family-owned). Decreases in average compensation ranged from 8% (publicly traded corporations) to 15% (family-owned). Partnerships reported the highest average salary ($130,208); family-owned corporations had the lowest ($95,805). The difference in average total compensation between the high of $146,188 (partnerships) and low of $107,144 (family-owned) structure was more than 27%, a narrower margin than the 2012 difference of 31%. Consistent with prior years, the majority of participants work in either publicly traded (40%) or privately held corporations (33%). Last year, it was 34% public and 36% private. The relative distribution of participants among these six categories was stable from 2008 to 2011, with changes of 2% or less in every category. This was also true in 2012 with the exception of a 4% drop in participants at publicly traded corporations. There is more variation this year a 4% drop for Subchapter S Corporations, a 3% drop for privately held corporations, and a 6% increase for publicly traded corporations. Household Income Average Total Compensation Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries $ 90,513 $ 97,897 [16] Mining $103,775 $128,267 [16] Contract Construction $ 95,128 $109,476 [41] Manufacturing $110,264 $132,736 [497] Transportation, Communications, and Utility Services $104,578 $122,780 [77] Wholesale and Retail Trade $105,884 $123,322 [102] Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate $109,226 $134,008 [139] Services (all) $113,641 $126,382 [446] Medical/Health services $109,906 $125,982 [108] Educational services $103,885 $111,367 [121] Public Accounting $141,685 $155,853 [42] Other service SIC codes $115,962 $129,937 [175] Government $ 91,961 $ 94,232 [60] Nonclassifiable $ 88,355 $ 89,588 [18] Number of responses shown in brackets. Table 9: Compensation by SIC Area Figure 6 shows the house-hold income for the married respondents. In 2013, the average is $174,232, a decrease from 2012 of 2.3%. The household income of married women continues to lag behind that of married men ($164,073 vs. $179,357). This difference is statistically significant this year, as it has been since 2006. The household income for women decreased $4,893 (2.9%) from 2012; men s household income decreased by 1.7% 19 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

($3,047). Both of these 2013 decreases are statistically significant. Analyses based on gender, single vs. dual income households, and children vs. no children are conducted on Average Salary the household income for married members. The 2013 household income for dual-income married members dropped from $184,552 in 2012 to $181,013 in 2013, a decrease of $3,539 (2%) from 2012. Note that the survey data does not distinguish which member in the dual-income households experienced a salary increase or decrease, rather, it simply looks at average household income. Household income for single-income married members decreased from $168,996 in 2012 to $160,790 this year, down $8,206 (5%) from 2012. Number of responses shown in brackets. Examining household income by gender within single- and dual-income categories yields additional insight. The average household income of single-income men is higher than that of single-income women Women Men ($173,054 vs. $114,722), a difference of 33.7%. The 2013 Dual Income Dual Income, No Kids average household income for Dual Income With Kids single-income men decreased Single Income $4,105 (2.4%), and it declined $15,842 (12%) for single-income women. In dual-income Single Income, No Kids Single Income With Kids households, the male participants again report average household income that is 3.7% higher than that of the female Table 10: Compensation by Business Structure Average Total Compensation Proprietorship $115,113 $119,905 [17] Partnership $130,208 $146,188 [73] Subchapter S Corporation $107,297 $125,873 [159] Family-Owned Corporation $ 95,805 $107,144 [105] Privately Held Corporation $104,980 $117,415 [439] Publicly Traded Corporation $113,429 $138,356 [529] Figure 6: Average Household Income of Married Members $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 participants ($183,532 and $177,212, respectively). Both dual-income men and women sustained a 2% decrease in their 2013 average household income. The effect of children in the household on average household income can also be measured. This year s responses indicate that single-income married members with children have an average household income of $164,311; single-income married members with no children have an income of $154,570. Compared to 2012 results, 2013 brought an increase of 3% for single-income married members with no kids and a 9% decrease for single-income married members with kids. The average dual-income household with children reported 2013 household income of $189,505; those without children reported an average income of $163,563, a16% difference. 20 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey

Compensation by Region, Responsibility, and Position Table 11 presents the average salaries and standard deviation for the 50 states and Washington, D.C., grouped into seven geographical regions. Despite the salary decreases that were reported for 2013, all seven regions maintained average salaries of more than $100,000. In 2007, there were only four regions with average salaries above $100,000. By 2010, every region reported averages above that benchmark.the Mountain region average salary increased 8.3% ($9,254) to $111,147, the only region to have an increase in 2013. This moves the Mountain region from lowest-paying region in the country to the third-highest. Despite a 3.5% decrease, the Mid-Atlantic region had the highest average salary at $119,777. The West Coast, which had the highest average salary in 2012, has the second-highest this year: $113,765. The region with the largest decline from 2012 is the West Coast region, which fell 16.4%. This was driven, in large part, by the decrease of $171,342 in Alaska. Please note that caution should be used when analyzing data at the state level. Due to small sample sizes, it may not be representative of the state as a whole. Sample sizes at the regional level are larger, allowing for more confidence in the numbers. To protect participants confidentiality, we do not report state results when there are only one or two responses. This year, that includes Montana and South Dakota. The unreported states data is included in the regional calculations. All regions had some combination of states reporting increases and others reporting decreases in average salary. In most regions, these increases and decreases even out to moderate regional fluctuations; a single, large change (such as Alaska) can have a significant impact. The Northeast had three states decrease Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Despite the salary decreases that were reported for 2013, all seven regions maintained average salaries of more than $100,000. Among the Mid-Atlantic states, two reported increases (Maryland and Virginia), and six had decreases. Three states in the South had moderate increases, and one (South Carolina) had a large increase. These were offset by large decreases in Louisiana ($61,462, 77%), Arkansas ($29,578, 30%), and Kentucky ($11,126, 13%). The Midwest had increases in two states offset by decreases in the remaining states, including a $13,687 (111.6%) decrease in Illinois. In the Plains region, only Oklahoma and Nebraska increased in average salary. Kansas and North Dakota reported large decreases of 38.9% ($37,770) and 28.5% ($20,735), respectively; Texas reported a small 3% decrease. All states except Idaho reported increases in the Mountain region, including increases of $25,771 (21%) in New Mexico and $16,316 (14.3%) in Utah. Tables 12 and 13 present compensation data based on the participants interpretation of where their specific job title falls within the responsibility areas and management levels in their organizations. Please remember that classifying job titles is always difficult because the duties and responsibilities and where in the hierarchy of the organization they fall vary from organization to organization, so be cautious when drawing any conclusions from the data. Table 12 presents the compensation of participants according to their classification of the responsibility area in which they work. Seven out of the 14 areas had decreases in average salary ranging from 2.7% to 29.5%. The largest of those decreases were in risk management (which had a small sample size) and cost accounting. Average total compensation decreased in nine of the 14 responsibility areas, with risk management again showing 21 2014 U.S. Salary Survey www.imanet.org/salary_survey