The search for the next leader of the U.S. accounting rulemaker comes with an unusual condition: before a candidate can help write the standards that govern corporate reporting, they may need to reshape their own personal finances.
The Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), which oversees the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), is seeking nominations for a new FASB chair and a board member, with terms beginning July 1, 2027, according to a call for nominations by the foundation earlier this month.
That call is straightforward. What’s less obvious is what happens once a candidate moves from “interested” to “serious contender.”Candidates have to pass an FAF ethics check that looks at their investments and any outside work, so the board’s decisions can’t be questioned as self-serving.
It’s more than a routine disclosure: finalists may need to list everything they own, sign that it meets the rules, and—before day one—sell or change holdings that could look like a conflict. That can include individual company stocks or financial ties to firms that make, audit, or depend on GAAP financial statements.
The aim is to avoid any perception that a standards decision could boost someone’s own portfolio. As a result, members are generally steered toward broad, diversified funds instead of picking individual winners and losers.
The chair role is a single, seven-year term running from July 1, 2027, to June 30, 2034, the FAF said. The current chair, Richard Jones, began his term on July 1, 2020, and his tenure concludes June 30, 2027, according to FASB biographical material.
Nominations are due February 23, 2026, and may be submitted to executive search firm Spencer Stuart at FASB@spencerstuart.com, the call said.
Taken together, the timeline and the ethics requirements explain why this isn’t a typical leadership search. The job’s influence is huge—and the personal constraints can be unusually strict.
A Rare Job – With Personal Constraints
FASB, a seven member board, sits at the center of U.S. financial reporting. Its standards define generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for public companies, private companies and non-profit organizations, shaping what investors, lenders and regulators see in audited financial statements.
Because GAAP decisions can change reported profits, debt levels, and key metrics—sometimes moving valuations, triggering loan limits, or affecting executive pay even when cash hasn’t changed—the FAF imposes stricter independence rules on FASB leaders than many government roles rely on.
To put that strictness in context, the FAF approach is closer to watchdog-style expectations—like the PCAOB—than to the looser conflict approach seen in places like Congress or parts of the SEC.
It is also more prescriptive than the approach used by the International Accounting Standards Board, which sets IFRS globally and generally manages conflicts through disclosure and recusal, rather than requiring divestitures or limits up front.
Those comparisons point to the same underlying concern: even a technically sound accounting decision can lose legitimacy if stakeholders suspect the decision-maker had something personal to gain.
What the Rules are Trying to Prevent
Accounting rules can change how a company looks on paper—profits, assets, debts, and disclosures—and those changes can affect investor decisions and market pricing.
That’s why conflicts rules for standard setters focus on one basic risk: if a decision-maker owns individual stocks or has ties to a specific company or sector, people may question whether a vote helped their own finances, even if the decision was made for the right reasons.
The FAF’s approach is meant to head off that doubt by steering officials away from investments and relationships that could benefit from their technical calls, and by limiting outside roles that could pull their loyalties in two directions.
It isn’t meant to stop anyone from saving or investing. The goal is to keep members’ personal finances from being affected by the rules they write—and to require disclosure and ongoing monitoring so new issues are caught during their term.
With that framework in mind, the nomination notice is not only about the chair. It also covers a second, full-time opening on the board.
A second Opening: Board Member Seat
The FAF is also taking nominations for a FASB board seat that will open July 1, 2027, after board member Marsha Hunt completes her second five-year term on June 30, 2027, according to the nomination materials.
The new board member would be appointed to an initial five-year term through June 30, 2032, and could be eligible for a second term. The posting calls for deep technical accounting expertise, familiarity with global financial reporting, and significant “preparer” experience—such as serving as a CFO or controller at a public or private company.
As with the chair role, the position is full time and based in Norwalk, Connecticut, the materials say.
The board opening and chair search are happening against a clear succession timeline, shaped by term limits and staggered appointments.
The Succession Backdrop
Jones, FASB’s eighth chair, came to the board after more than 30 years at Ernst & Young, where he was chief accountant and helped shape the firm’s positions on proposed accounting standards.
Vice chair Hillary Salo started her term on July 1, 2024, following roles that included FASB technical director and audit partner at KPMG. Other board members’ terms extend into 2028, 2029, and later, reflecting a staggered structure designed to preserve continuity while still allowing periodic turnover.
As a result, the chair search is framed less as a full reset and more as choosing a leader who can set priorities, run the due-process standard-setting workflow, and protect FASB’s credibility amid ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of new standards.
That dynamic—high influence, high scrutiny—sets up the core decision facing many potential candidates: whether the professional upside is worth the personal constraints.
The Trade-off for Candidates
For top-tier accounting and finance professionals, the draw is clear: few jobs offer the same influence over U.S. financial reporting. The chair and board members help determine how complex transactions are reflected in financial statements and disclosures, and they steer major projects through public meetings, comment letters, and final updates to the Accounting Standards Codification.
But the trade-offs are unusually personal. In addition to being a full-time role, the independence framework can force candidates to rethink how they invest and to scale back outside activities that could create real—or perceived—conflicts.
The message from the FAF is straightforward: credibility in standard setting depends not just on technical rigor and an open process, but on public confidence that decision-makers are insulated from the financial consequences of the rules they write.
And credibility also depends on leadership. Stakeholders want officials who can clearly explain what changed and why, based on their own judgment—not simply repeat staff analysis or scripted talking points. When that doesn’t happen, confidence in the standards can weaken.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
