The dog days of summer. I’d rather be under a beach umbrella, doing teaching outlines for the fall semester with the facilitating aid of something cold and rum-based. Instead I am in deep dialog on tough issues with one of the world’s thoughtful accountancy regulators.
A very small group, that. “Thoughtful accountancy regulator” being as oxymoronic as “Italian justice system” or “effective Belgian government,” their entire convocation could be booked in a telephone booth with room to spare.
On our table was one of my persistent themes, under the rubric of the threatened survivability of the Big Four and their nearly exclusive franchise to audit large global companies – only one major shock away from disintegration, which once started will be unstoppable not least because of the limited vision and authority of the political and regulatory classes.
Namely, there is no real chance to get ahead of this destructive tidal wave without explicit confrontation of the obsolete and anachronistic nature of the audit report in its current form.
To this proposition, my correspondent suggests there is at least some chance of traction under cover of the legislative debates on the question why auditors did not do more in relation to the credit and banking crisis of the last two years.
Possibly. But because the lawmakers’ limited attention span is focused elsewhere – on executive pay schemes and bank survival subsidies and constraints on short sales and flash trading -- I doubt it.
Our exchange calls to mind a recent holiday, and the moving experience of touring one of the surviving fortresses of the Maginot Line – the defensive installations named for France’s Minister of Defense, built in the 1930’s and left largely unscathed when the invading Germans simply and speedily flew their planes and drove their tanks over and around.
Dug deep into the Alsatian hills, these brutal piles of 1920’s military technology – built for 3 billion francs and among the largest public projects in France since the construction of the Gothic cathedrals – are derided by history as a strategic failure, because they were rendered irrelevant by the German circumvention.
Yet consider the success -- in terms, the Line did its job. It was evaded, rather than destroyed by direct attack; surrendered largely whole, rather than bombarded; and only thereafter abandoned by government to the effects of rust, decay and amateur tourism.
It’s much the same for the modern-era audit report: Conceived in an earlier and simpler time, oriented to the avoidance of problems no longer meaningful, and now ignored by aggressors with superior tools in their armory. Consuming vast sums of defensive budgets, engaging battalions of trained and expensive manpower in an endeavor of questionable value, and achieving no obvious deterrence against threats on a scale of systemic corporate collapse.
Life for the French garrisons would have been misery: cramped underground in caves of steel and concrete; enclosed by machinery, ducts and wiring; ventilators struggling with the confluent mixture of petrol, dangerous explosives and close human quarters. Happily, except for times of drills and alerts, they were often able to emerge into the French forests, to hunt the birds and rabbits that relieved their military rations.
Contrast the modern audit engagement team – inflicting vast costs on their clients for a marginal purpose, toiling away to tick the boxes required by Sarbanes/Oxley and its equivalents, facing a hostile world through the narrow visor of inflexible reporting requirements and a crude and outmoded arsenal of opinion language, and exposed to being out-flanked or over-run without warning by antagonists of superior mobility and strategic imagination.
Just as the Maginot Line proved its worth as a sublimely ironic success against invasion that never came, the current audit report stands as a bulwark effective only against the kind of assaults about which no one cares.
Instead, just as the hapless French troops were obliged to surrender without a struggle when overtaken from the rear, the modern system of assurance has been revealed as dug in and powerless against such invasive forces as the exotic financial derivatives of the credit crisis or the guerrilla tactics of a Bernie Madoff or an Alan Stanford.
And to what end? The metaphor can be pressed one step further. By surrendering the Maginot Line’s indefensible position, the French cut losses that would otherwise have been catastrophic, and survived to be joined by their allies in a strategic re-grouping.
As with supplanting the dimly mis-guided André Maginot, can the regulators find in their weary ranks the likes of a Churchill or Roosevelt or DeGaulle?
Cometh the hour, cometh the man? The future of the profession can only hope.
Thanks for joining this dialog. Please feel free to share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.
To continue the military metaphor, a wise man once defined an auditor as someone who stalks the battlefield after the smoke has cleared, bayoneting the wounded. And what of audit failures? The motto remains "caveat emptor" in that an audit provides some basic level of comfort, but does not relieve the reader of the report from performing his own due diligence. Financial standards are rarely enacted without at least one dissenting opinion from a learned member of the accounting profession - perhaps s/he is the one who is correct! Read the report, absorb the nuances, reach your own conclusions.
Posted by: Larry Davis | August 24, 2009 at 06:00 PM