A meta-review of the EC audit reform proposals

Posted by Christie Malry on November 30, 2011 at 10:02 pm

Because I'm much too lazy to review the EC audit reform proposals myself, other than to express shock and surprise that Barnier could even conceive of a six-year maximum audit tenure, here are some thoughts from other people.

ICAEW doesn't agree with all of what the EC proposes. But it does find some areas of common ground, which it highlights. ICAS finds even more grounds for disagreement, in particular the burdens it will place on business. ACCA use their release to give an outing for their new-technical-director-on-the-block, Sue Almond. She, like ICAEW, is careful not to bash Barnier too heavily, and looks to find some points of agreement, such as the emphasis on the importance of audit committees, while fretting about the potential costs of mandatory rotation. Chartered Accountants Ireland have the smoothest response; while welcoming the proposals, they reserve the right to put the boot in once they've examined them in more detail and consulted with stakeholders 1.

The firms have also been active. KPMG argue in terms of audit quality to put up a stern defence of multi-disciplinary firms, which would be prohibited by the proposals. pwc is even harsher; while also arguing for greater audit quality, they complain that the EC has missed an opportunity to really learn the lessons of the crisis. Deloitte avoids the audit quality argument altogether, instead preferring to highlight how the EC's proposals won't deliver its stated objectives 2.

There are comments in some of the newspapers too: The Guardian says that Barnier is "taking on" the Big 4. The Telegraph echoes this, saying that he wants to break them up. It also notes that the proposals will seriously weaken the powers of national regulators, which presumably includes institutes as well as the FRC.

Accountancy Age snorts at the "watered down" proposals, which have dropped the notion of mandatory joint audits that was included in the earlier leaked drafts.

Notes:

  1. At the time of writing this, I couldn't see published comments from CIMA or CIPFA
  2. At the time of writing this, I couldn't see published comments from E&Y

People who read this post also read:

Leave a Reply