The perceived wisdom of the day is that auditors simply weren't sceptical enough about the financial health of banks. And, as a result, that's why they failed.

I used to be an auditor. So, I will draw upon all my reserves of scepticism and opine that this "scepticism" argument is a complete load of bollocks. Firstly, policy makers, ministers, politicians, dunderheaded journalists, and overblown bloggers like Ritchie and Frannie don't have the faintest idea about what auditors are required to do by law and regulation. Nor do they know what auditors actually did do in practice. Nor do they really understand very much about banks and what they were doing in the run-up to the crisis. So they are in no position at all to make any statement about the level of scepticism exercised by or even required of auditors.

I am being sceptical. Which, according to the perceived wisdom must be the right thing to do. It's time that the profession hit back against the lie that auditor scepticism was the problem. They need to get sceptical about scepticism. The motley gang of commentators, looking for someone to blame, should welcome it, shouldn't they?

Written on my Android mobile phone. Article may be edited later.

People who read this post also read:

• The four stooges wrongly blame auditors again
• Bad news for the audit-bashers
• The lazy anti-auditor rhetoric must stop
• Et tu, Ritche?
• Ritchie and Frankie get their comeuppances

Filed under: Auditing, Politics with tags francine mckenna, frc, fsa, idiots, richard murphy, scepticism