Something that's been troubling me for a while.

The banks pursued a risky business model apparently without adequate internal controls to mitigate any problems that might arise. When the liquidity crisis hit, they were unable to manage the damage to their business and faced ruin. The role of their auditors was called into question.

BP pursued a risky business model apparently without adequate internal controls to mitigate any problems that might arise.  When one of their wells started leaking in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico, they were unable to manage the damage to their business and faced ruin.  The role of their auditors was not called into question.

Two different operational problems, but two very different responses from the public.  Why are auditors felt to be blameworthy for the operational problems at banks while they're not felt to be blameworthy for the operational problems at BP? What, honestly, is the difference?

People who read this post also read:

• How much should BP have to pay?
• Bunch of Pircs
• Tax Journal on “government approved tax avoidance”
• Tax avoidance, an apocryphal tale
• Of course some banks will gain from the corporation tax cut

Filed under: Auditing, Current issues with tags audit liability, banks, bp