A summary of the cases of financial outrages, accounting
fraud and corporate fraud which fascinated us last year and their consequences.
Financial crises are as old as the financial industry
itself, but the number of high-profile corporate collapses in 2018, associated
with a threesome of major reviews into the audit industry, are engaging the
issue of accounting
outrages firmly in the spotlight. All are calculated to bring greater
clearness to the industry, define more obviously what is expected of auditors
and how to avoid a potential clash of interests as well as trying to prevent
additional accounting fraud, amongst much else.
The first of these two both unconfined their findings on
the industry in December last year. Legal & General chairman Sir John
Kingman’s review of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the self-governing regulator of auditors, accountants and
actuaries, had severe words to say about its subject, calling for it to be
tussled altogether and replaced by the Audit, Reporting and Governance
Authority (ARGA). The Government has accepted these proposals. “Having spent
most of its life in unimportance,” he said, “the FRC now finds itself subject
to tough and determined criticism unparalleled spotlight.”
It had taken an “excessively consensual” approach to its
controlling work and needed to be rebuilt from the ground up, not smallest
because it had grave problems about how it enlisted top staff.
Funding needs to change: currently the FRC is partially
dependent on a voluntary levy from audit firms,
potentially execution it unwilling to “bite the hand that feeds it”; ARGA
should have legal recognition and funding. Further recommendations were for a
“duty of alert” for auditors to report “feasibility of other serious concerns”,
and for the regulator to have increased powers such as making references to
shareholders to cut surpluses or fire senior staff where they felt it was warranted.
Rising concerns
In the wake of rising concerns, the Department of
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has also launched its own
review into the sector, while its Select Committee is now looking into the
execution of the CMA reports. The latter outlines serious concerns about
struggle and suggests changes to regulation to improve the sector.
Chief issues include the fact that corporations choose
their own auditors, which means they go for those with a “cultural fit”.
Another problem was limited special, with the Big Four Audit firms conducting
97 per cent of the audits. There were doubts that the focus of quality could be
cooperated by the fact that 75 per cent of the Big Four’s revenue came from
other services including consulting.
The ‘expectation gap’
The CMA suggested regulation to separate audit from consulting
services, with the two split into separate functioning entities with
separate management, accounts and wage.
It also suggested the introduction of measures to considerably
increase the accountability of those leading audit committees in firms and the
imposition of a “joint audit” government, which would include firms outside the
Big Four having a role in auditing the UK’s biggest companies.
Comments
Post a Comment