The firm has announced that he will be replaced by John Veihmeyer, current chairman and CEO of KPMG’s US firm. Veihmeyer will continue in these roles as global chairman from his base in New York City.
We are indebted to him, and he has our best wishes as he focuses on his recovery
He received the unanimous support of the board and his selection is expected to be ratified at the March meeting of senior partners from the firm’s global network.
He will succeed Andrew who has held the role since 2011. A partner since 1988, Andrew was chairman of KPMG Asia-Pacific and chairman of KPMG Australia until assuming the global role.
The firm didn’t provide any further details of the 57-year-old Australian’s condition in its statement, saying only that he “will focus on his treatment and recovery”.
Andrew congratulated Veihmeyer on his selection. “He is an outstanding leader, a good friend and has already made a significant contribution to KPMG in his leadership of the US member firm. He is the ideal person to lead our network into this next important phase of our growth.”
Veihmeyer, who has spent his entire 37-year career at KPMG, previously held other leadership roles at the firm, including deputy chairman, managing partner of the firm's Washington operations, and global head of risk management and regulatory.
“The opportunity to lead KPMG globally is a privilege and honor, and I look forward to working alongside our incredibly talented professionals from around the world,” he said. “My focus will be continuing to strengthen our global reputation for quality and professionalism, as well as our status as one of the world’s great places to work and build a career.
“On behalf of our board and all our professionals, I want to thank Michael Andrew for the enormous progress made under his leadership. We are indebted to him, and he has our best wishes as he focuses on his recovery.”
KPMG is the world’s fourth largest accountancy firm. The gap between it and third-ranked EY increased by $1bn in the past year to $2.4bn. In 2011 the fee income difference between the firms was only $170m.