Dennis Howlett has a good blog on audit reform today. In it he quotes Joe Weisenthal'ssuggestions on this issue:
First, we nuke the SEC. This isn't really that radical. There's precious little evidence that it does what it purports to - namely, protect investors. If anything, it protects investment managers and others from investors, who might suspect they're getting ripped off. Sure, it can catch the occasional insider trading case, but they're usually pretty obvious when you see a massive trade right before big news comes out.
Second, we stop letting companies hire their own auditors. Companies have little incentive to hire aggressive auditors. An auditor won't get business by being a pain in the ass to the company it's auditing. The game is to do the bare minimum that makes everyone happy. That state of affairs works fine in the boom times, but when the recession comes, the whole charade is exposed for what it is.
Finally, we make each listed company pay a fee to an independent auditing organization. Rather than hire the auditors directly, companies will pay some portion of their revenue to an independent industry body (like the SIPC or some such) that then hires auditors for its member companies. The auditor would work for this group, and it's ability to get business year-on-year would be tied to its performance. Whiff too often? You're done. No more work for you.
Dennis, like Prem Sikka (who is also in action today) thinks that reform is unlikely if the existing institutions stay in place. I agree. They have been captured by those they are meant to regulate. As such they have failed. We need new regulation, new people and new ideas.
I like those Joe puts forward.
I'll add another. It is very obvious that substantial reform of the regulation of the corporate sector is needed. This regulation is currently paid for by taxpayers which is the wrong solution, I suggest. There are more than 2.4 million companies in the UK right now. They need pay just £15 a year to exist. That's absurd: no wonder Companies House does such an appalling job in making sure that the most basic compliance with accounting and filing requirements takes place.
Companies must be made to pay for proper independent regulation, including their audit. There is an easy way to do this. The filing fee must be increased. That for small companies that do not need audit should increase to not less than £250 a year - enough to ensure staff are available to run a proper register of beneficial owners of all companies, to chase them when filing does not take place and to fund prosecutions for those in breach of their obligations. In addition this will pay for the supply of meaningful data on companies to the tax authorities, which should include collection of compulsory data on which entities have bank accounts from banks themselves since this is sure indication that those companies must be trading and that they must not, as a result, be allowed to be struck off the Register without settlement of all tax liabilities due.
Second, all large companies requiring auditing should be required to pay a fee based on a ratio of their turnover, employees and total assets. Auditors would be paid from this fund.
It's completely possible. And the data on total audit fees paid in the last year needed to set the budget is already on public record if only someone is willing to work it out so a loss is unlikely, and could be recovered in future years in any event.
Add in additional fees for companies in other regulated sectors and the mechanisms for independence could all be in place in no time at all.
Any takers?
But please don't say radical reform is not possible: it is.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I just want to say Greetings and thanks for the work you do. Best wishes for 2009. I particularly like the freely expressed practical ideas and effective way you do it.
Congratulations. This is practical stuff on audit
I second tthe previous comment and also wonder why on earth what you suggest is currently thought to be radical.
It costs more to license a car than it does a company, and you are far more likely to get lifted for any infraction of your responsibilities.
Paul
I like your logic!
Richard
[…] As a result the audit process is seen to be meaningless in both cases because in both it is a matter of the auditors protecting their own interests, not that of society. And that’s why a change in the whole process is required. […]
My suggestion for a better way forward would be to break the link that the Board of Directors selects the company auditors. I believe shareholders should be significantly involved in the selection of auditors of their property. This would mean that a shareholder meeting would have a choice of auditors for them to select and reinforce the importance that the auditor was there to protect members’ interests. Once an auditor is appointed at the AGM, members should be able to raise their concerns with the auditor and such views should be aired and discussed through say an investors’ forum on the firms website.
Would anyone like to add to this train of thought or demolish it?!!
Duncan
I think that’s a valuable contribution to debate
Best
Richard
[…] new system of auditing is […]
[…] new system of auditing is […]
I agree with and absolutely support this idea to improve independent audit funding and regulation.
I am a CPA with 32 years of audit and consulting experience. As I near the end of my career, I have decided to do something I strongly believe is needed for the auditing profession and that will enhance governance: I am creating the Foundation for Audit Excellence.
The mission of this Foundation will be to identify, promote, celebrate, and emphasize the ideals, ideas, standards, operations and techniques that represent audit excellence.
Our Foundation will communicate the need and opportunities for audit service excellence, together with examples, procedures and practices that achieve such a superior distinction.
I have been asked if this Foundation will be in competition with the American Institute of CPA’s Center for Audit Quality. My response is that the Foundation will go beyond the “comfort” and “inertia” zones of both the Center for Audit Quality and the auditing profession. An example of this is the issue of external auditor independence. The Foundation for Audit Excellence will aggressively pursue the resolution of this long-standing impediment to service excellence that arises from the way that audits of public companies are funded/controlled. The Foundation intends to push for proactive consideration by Congress and the Obama administration to change this failed system. In our view it is impossible to provide excellent audit service with this current system that impairs realistic independence.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Hamill, Sr.
Founder and President
Foundation for Audit Excellence
Richard
You should look at the AABA
http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/home.html
You’ll find soul mates
Richard
[…] But it seems Francine, Dennis, Prem Sikka, just a few others and I are the very few who are willing to take on this issue. I guess it provides us with a market opportunity, but right now I’d rather a few more were […]