KPMG to launch election process for next global chair
KPMG, one of the world's big four accountancy firms, is preparing to kick off a process to select its next global chairman amid growing speculation that its UK chief intends to stand for the role.
Sky News has learnt that Jon Holt, who has been chief executive of the professional services giant's UK arm since 2021, is being widely touted by colleagues as a contender to replace Bill Thomas as chair of KPMG Global next year.
The formal election process will not get underway until the first half of 2026, according to insiders.
Under Mr Holt's stewardship, KPMG's financial performance and governance have been stabilised following a torrid period in which it was hit by multiple fines for audit failings.
The most notorious of these related to Carillion, the collapsed construction giant.
KPMG has not yet disclosed details of the process of electing Mr Thomas's successor, although the incumbent was chosen by KPMG's global council, which includes representation from all member firms.
Previous chairs of KPMG's global network, including the Brit Sir Mike Rake, have combined the role with leading their domestic firm, although it was unclear whether such a dual role would still be seen as viable.
In a statement issued to Sky News, a KPMG International spokesperson said: "Bill Thomas's term as KPMG Global chairman and CEO runs to September 30 2026.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
38 minutes ago
- The Sun
John Healey says NATO must 'step up' and increase its military might amid plan to spend 5% of GDP on defence
JOHN Healey today says NATO must 'step up' and increase its military might - as he pushes for defence spending to hit 5 per cent of GDP. The Defence Secretary said this week's NATO summit will be a 'defining moment for our alliance and for Britain's security' as we confront a more dangerous world. 2 And as war between Iran and Israel rages, he said 'Britain stands ready' to send more RAF jets to protect UK bases in the Middle East. Keir Starmer is meeting fellow NATO leaders for crunch talks this week as the bloc is poised to agree a new target to spend 5 per cent on defence and security by 2032. It comes after Donald Trump said the bloc is shirking its responsibilities and the days of America paying for Europe's protection are over. Writing in The Sun on Sunday, Mr Healey said: 'We're living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. 2 This Summit is a defining moment for our alliance and for Britain's security. 'It's a moment where NATO allies will pledge to step up on defence spending to boost our collective security. 'President Trump and NATO chief, Mark Rutte, are right: the current NATO spending pledge – to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence – is a relic of a past era. 'We are now in a new era of threat. And as threats increase, defence spending must too.' He added: 'It's why this week, at NATO we will discuss a new, higher spending target. And Britain is up for that discussion.' NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is pushing for the bloc to spend 5 per cent of GDP on a new defence and security by 2032. This would be made up of 3.5 per cent for core military spending and 1.5 per cent on broader security related areas like infrastructure resilience. Spain is reportedly kicking off at the new target and may try to block it. But while Mr Healey does not explicitly commit to the new target in today's article, he backs talking about hiking spending. Britain faces a more 'dangerous and unpredictable world' as Iran and Israel trade missiles and Russian troops continue to fight in Ukraine, he warned. Amid spiralling tensions in the Middle East, the PM has already sent Typhoon fighter jets to the region. Mr Healey said he is prepared to send more there if security fears grow. He writes: 'Force protection for our bases and personnel is at the highest level and I won't rule out sending more capabilities if needed. Because Britain stands ready.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Leprechaun economics? Ireland's pot of gold could vanish any time
T wo headlines from recent weeks offered conflicting pointers. On June 6, David Murphy, RTE's economics and public affairs editor, posted a report headlined: 'Latest GDP figures hint at return of Leprechaun Economics'. A day later, Michael Murphy wrote a piece for The Daily Telegraph headed 'No more leprechaun economics: Ireland's tax swindle is finally ending'. You pays your money, you takes your choice. In fairness, David Murphy's piece for RTE was tentative in its conclusion and built heavily on the remarkable news from the Central Statistics Office that the Irish economy had grown by a staggering 9.7 per cent in the first three months this year. This was an example of leprechaun economics at its best: showing the vulnerability of Irish economic data to American multinational decisions that have little to do with domestic developments.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Marriage Diaries: Should I get a prenup for my second wedding or trust my husband-to-be?
Should you be planning the end of your marriage before you've even tied the knot? This is the question that's been plaguing me for the past few weeks. I'm 58 years old, and next March will be marrying Steve, 60. It will be a second wedding for both of us: I have three young adult daughters and he has a son. Steve and I are taking great pleasure in planning the next stage of our lives together. But – in between conversations about which location would suit our intimate ceremony, and what dress I should wear as a 50-something bride – I can't help but wonder whether we should get a prenuptial agreement. I'm so preoccupied about this decision that it's been keeping me awake at night. I've been fully open with Steve about my dilemma. He's quite relaxed about the subject, and isn't offended (at least, that's what he tells me) but doesn't think a prenup is necessary. I think this comes down to how we both experienced the end of our last marriages. My divorce from my ex-husband came through six years ago. It was nasty and protracted and expensive, mostly because my ex tried to hide money abroad and attempted to bully me into submission when I was hoping to appeal to his – ultimately absent – better nature. In the end, I had to hire a top family law firm. After a draining process – which ended up in court with a finance dispute resolution – I received a fair settlement. But it cost me the best part of £50,000 and a whole lot of tears. On the other hand, Steve's experience of divorce was far more pleasant. He and his wife had an amicable 'no fault' settlement, which barely involved lawyers. His son was also grown up, so it was less traumatic for everyone. After the sale of the London marital home, my children and I moved into a small cottage in West Sussex which I decorated with great care: I feel happy and settled here. I love my current home so much that Steve has agreed to move in with me while he rents out his Yorkshire house. When it comes to our respective finances, Steve and I are comfortable, but neither of us are rich: I'd say that financially, we are in a similar situation. We are both self-employed in the arts world and our properties are worth about the same. Prenuptial agreements didn't used to be binding in the UK, but I've consulted a lawyer who has told me that – done the right way – they can be. The problem is, setting up a legally watertight agreement could cost up to £4,000. My best friend is telling me that I'm being cynical and defeatist. Having known me for most of my life, she agrees that Steve is a far nicer man than my ex. I should embrace this happy new path with joy, she says, and not throw shade on the occasion by being negative. But she hasn't been through the pain of divorce: she hasn't seen how a white-wedding day can turn into a miasma of bitterness and hatred. I'm just not sure I could go through all that again. All I really care about is keeping this well-loved roof over my head, should we separate – this basic security is everything to me. 'We're both nice people,' says Steve. 'In the worst-case scenario we would sort it out, and I would never take your home from you.' But is it naive to believe this statement, uttered when things are at their rosiest? Surely one of the gifts of reaching midlife is learning from experience, and not making the same mistakes again. Should I listen to my gut and instruct a lawyer? Or am I being negative and doomy – and would my time (and money) be better spent on booking a super-luxurious honeymoon?
