Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Pure Audit


There were lots of fuss last month over audit business separation from the rest of consultancy. Indeed, The Economist, Accountancy Age and other business media decided to pay attention to this hot topic.
Actually, I can not say I was much surprised by this news. The idea emerged in European Commission (EC) at the end of 2010, when so called Green Paper was issued. In my overview of this discussion paper in February this year I emphasised, that EC used in their report categories like “pure audit firms” and “inspection units”.
In this post I am going to contemplate some aspects of pure audit.

No problems?
There is no problem for existence of pure audit firms except for initial stages of industry restructuring. I am sorry for Big 4 and other audit firms, but restructuring should cause painful changes in their business model.
There are some other issues of interest. For example, are brands for audit and consultancy going to have same name? What it if consultancy business would collapse or in other way would be able to damage the auditors’ reputation? Would the business be allowed mutual investment, e.g. Deloitte consultancy owns audit and audit owns consultancy? So at this point we reach the level of problems which usually attributed to banking business. The idea of banks ring-fencing has been discussed rather massively in UK this autumn and Glass-Steagall act recalled as well.
Would accounting ethical codes change accordingly I wonder? I suggest that previous projects of employee who used to work for consultancy should be checked to avoid independence problems.

Refocusing reforms
Would this reform change anything in current governance structure? Frankly saying I am in a huge doubt. This is because connection between consulting and audit segments should be totally cut to make changes relatively effective. The questions I set above should be answered by US and European policy makers.
Why not refocus our attention on shareholders? Let me speculate a bit on this subject. Shareholders are major users of auditors’ work, audit reports are addressed to them. It is obvious that shareholders (principals) hire one type of agents (auditors) to check quality of work and truthfulness of other agents (managers). The idea should be simple: shareholders should win or lose from the decision of hiring good or bad auditor. In more broad view this would include stakeholders for public interest entity.
Thus, I would propose idea of introduction mechanism according to which shareholders would be able to participate more actively in the process of selection and approving annual auditor. First, it might include creation of separate audit (governance) expenses reserve/fund, which would be used by shareholders for audits without consent of managers. Second, introduction of information systems in the process of auditor selection and dealing with audit reserve money by shareholders. Third, opportunity of minority shareholders to use resources of audit reserve and appoint additional auditors in case of any need. Yes, I honestly think that possibility of the second opinion is appropriate tool to discipline first auditors and fully appropriate if shareholder wants to have alternative view of professional. Fourth, the arrangements for other stakeholders’ participation should be made. For example, banks might want the opinion to be issued by PwC, government wants to appoint local audit firm, shareholders have more belief in KPMG’s report. You are welcome! If all of these interested (and powerful enough) parties have money to pay different auditors for their independent audit projects (not joined audit) then why not let them embark for this journey. Again, the idea is that stakeholders should bear risks of doing nothing and doing something.      

In Denial? I told you so! J
Here is small anecdote in the end. On 13th of September UK PwC Twitter account posted following: “Best question about our performance last year wins an iPad. First read our Annual Report?”. Being cautious auditor and willing to get free iPad (probably to do iAudit J ) I read their annual report. As I did not find even a word in their strategy on how PwC UK is going to tackle coming audit regulations I twitted in response:

PwC guys ignored my question… and plans to impose regulations on audit firm rotation revealed at the end of September. I told you so! J   

8 comments:

  1. Hello Farid!
    I'm a auditor in Brazil and the issue is polemic. Here we are moving towards IFRS. We still have many definitions in accounting and auditing environment in all continents.

    Best Rds,

    LĂșcio Rodrigues

    ReplyDelete

  2. This article is amazing. It helped me a lot. Sir, keep up the good work. We are always with you and look forward to your new interesting articles.
    Audit Firms in Dubai | Audit Firms in UAE | Auditing Companies Abu Dhabi

    ReplyDelete
  3. A good article saves this in your future. I hope that you are doing everything possible to allow yourself and make the future bright.
    Audit Firms in Dubai | Audit Firms in UAE | Auditing Companies

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi,
    Interesting article! Thank you for sharing them! if you want Tax consultants in bangalore GST consultants in bangalore click on it

    ReplyDelete
  5. A very informative article about business consultant. thanks for sharing. also if you want to hair a business consultant click below:

    business consulting firms in india
    audit firms in Mumbai
    direct tax consultancy services in india

    ReplyDelete

  6. Thank you for sharing your insightful analysis on the topic of audit firm separation and the potential implications of such reforms. Your perspective on the challenges and considerations involved in restructuring the industry offers valuable insights into this complex issue.

    It's interesting to contemplate the various aspects of pure audit firm and the potential impact on the governance structure. Your proposal to refocus attention on shareholders and actively involve them in the process of selecting and approving annual auditors is particularly intriguing. By allowing shareholders to have a more significant role in audit-related decisions, it could enhance accountability and transparency within the auditing process.

    Regarding your anecdote about PwC's Twitter post, it highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in audit firms' strategies, especially in addressing forthcoming audit regulations.

    Your blog post was indeed very informative, and it offers valuable perspectives on the ongoing discussions surrounding audit firm separation. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your article has greatly benefited me and given me fresh information, therefore I'm really delighted. Turnstile Gate Supplier in UAE

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great insights on the complexities of audit business separation and its potential impact on the industry. The discussion around restructuring and maintaining brand integrity is crucial, especially as firms like the Big 4 face potential upheavals. The comparison to banking ring-fencing is apt, highlighting the need for careful consideration of how consultancy and audit segments interact.

    Your proposal for shareholders to have a more active role in auditor selection is intriguing and could indeed add a layer of accountability. Allowing shareholders and stakeholders to influence the audit process could enhance transparency and ensure that audits are conducted with greater independence.

    At Spectrum Accounts, we see firsthand the implications of such regulatory changes in our work with audit firms in Dubai. The evolving landscape underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous standards and adapting to new regulations. We’re committed to helping our clients navigate these shifts effectively, ensuring that their audits and accounting practices remain robust and reliable.

    Looking forward to seeing how these discussions evolve and what changes will be implemented. Thanks for shedding light on this important topic!

    ReplyDelete