Where Else Does Size Matter? Audit Firms, and the Experience in India

Suppose a law that limited the height of professional basketball players to six feet. Or that forbade the performance of Beethoven’s symphonies by groups of musicians larger than a trio.

However able the players, the performance quality would be inferior. Discerning customers would flee in multitudes, for venues freely offering the unrestricted alternatives.

Independent audit has evolved a great deal since the winter of 1850, when sole practitioner William Welch Deloitte delivered his first opinion on the financial statements of the Great Western Railway.

Today the surviving Big Four – Mr. Deloitte’s namesake, along with Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers – collectively comprise some 593,000 personnel, and have worldwide annual turnover of $103 billion. The foursome together have a lock on engagements for global-scale companies in the developed economies – doing the audits, for example, of all but a handful of the S&P 500 in the United States, all of the FTSE 100 in the United Kingdom, and (with the involvement of some smaller firms as joint auditors) all of the CAC 40 in France.

Ample justifications are offered – scale, technical expertise, cross-border client demands, and uniformity of standardized practices being the usual rationales. On the other side, careful risk managers at the smaller networks are ready to concede this high-risk territory to their larger brethren, competing at levels where complexity and exposure are, optimistically, more manageable.

There being no cogent case that the smaller audit firms deliver better quality than the larger, an argument in favor of scale lies in the recent disasters: critics of the still-emerging schemes of Bernard Madoff and Allan Stanford are quick to point out that each employed tiny audit firms, lacking visible signs of personnel or qualifications, or indeed even appropriate licensing compliance.

Still, vestiges of the Victorian era of Mr. Deloitte’s start-up do survive in the profession’s structure and attitudes. The visible current example is in India, where the governing rhetoric is dominated by the small firms’ unexcepted hostility to the Big Four – even ahead of this winter’s demonization of PwC over the $1 billion debacle at Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

As a legacy of an earlier and simpler provincial time, audit firms in India have been capped at no more than 20 partners, each allowed to sign no more than 30 reports. All very well, for an economy comprising thousands of store-front enterprises – served in India by as many as 45,000 little accounting practices. But hardly does this suit the demands of global-scale enterprises, where even the members of the so-called “second tier” continue to lose market share to the largest networks.

Overseers of the profession, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in India and the Ministry of Public Affairs – with the combination of bombast and naïveté that is characteristic of officials extended beyond their vision or their competence – have responded to Satyam with a variety of retrograde proposals, including mandatory rotation of audit firms and a blacklist for firms under investigation -- see here, here and here – also scrutinizing such superficialities as the firms’ policies on paid leave and Institute seminars.

The first of these is already discredited by the example in Italy – the only developed country with experience. There, mandatory rotation only increased the Big Four’s market concentration, and the consequent division of responsibility between Grants and Deloitte arguably contributed to the on-going misbehavior at Parmalat.

And if the punishment of a blacklist were applied ahead of the conclusion and final judgment of appropriate enforcement proceedings, it would only perpetuate the lack of due process manifest in the continued imprisonment of the still-uncharged and presumably innocent Satyam engagement partners from Price Waterhouse.

As well observed in the natural sciences, evolution is a force that will not be stopped. It can only be diverted or stalled temporarily – through artificial means, political resistance or subsidies and expediencies.

Still, the trend to large-company auditor concentration has been inexorable for decades elsewhere, and is already well on display in India: at last available count, of the 300 largest corporate enterprises not under Indian state control, 178 were audited by a Big Four firm (of which 24 included a smaller firm along for the ride as joint auditor).

The lessons of Madoff and Stanford speak loudly to the credibility of small-shop audits for large-scale situations. “Small is beautiful” cannot be established by the claim that sometimes “large may be ugly.” Those positioned to shape the future of the profession in India will eventually be obliged to take heed.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Home page – easy, free and non-commercial.

Comments

[Y Ramakrishna]

The question is not whether a small or BIG firm that does the audit. It is that whether the auditor is independent and has the necessary integrity. Bottom line is that when you have someone you are supposed to be objectively auditing writing the check, it is too much of a conflict of interest. With the economy down and important clients more valuable than ever to these firms than ever, you’d have to be joking to think that auditors are in a real authoritative spot right now. It's all about appearance with these firms, not reality.

[call India]

I'm a fan of the title of this article. It definitely attracts attention. With the time I came to the idea that the difference between the countries with high rate of crimes and these with low rates is that in the first case auditors are not objective towards middle companies too.