For decades, auditors have enjoyed self-regulation. This has led to senior accountants, mainly from PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG, assuming rule-making status. Many argue that this apparent conflict of interest has led to auditors skilfully deflecting blame for failing to spot glaring black holes or fraud at a range of institutions from Enron to Madoff and the failed banks.
UK forensic accountant Richard Murphy says: "The fundamental question is how accountants got away with changing rules of accountancy, which state they don't have to assess the valuation of assets underlying the assets on a balance sheet. How did they get away with changing the audit rules?"
The Observer begins to ask the over due question - why have the auditors had a 'good recession' when they so obviously contributed so seriously to the misinformation and opacity that helped cause it.
It's time they were called to account - and made to both pay and reform.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree with all of this but I would also add that the accounting standard-setters acquiesced at all times with “off-balance sheet finance”,whereby anything that the directors did not want to show the world was “shoved under the carpet”
In every financial crisis,whether limited to a single entity (Eg Enron) or on a more widespread basis this ugly creature has reared its head
All of these people have a hell of a lot of questions to answer