Is it the best of times, in the struggle to re-introduce value into the traditional auditor’s report – or the worst of times? The age of wisdom or the age of foolishness?
Latest to join the Dickensian-length of characters is the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, which on May 16 released its consultation paper, “Enhancing the Value of Auditor Reporting: Exploring Options for Change” (here).
Compared to the others, whom to list takes up three full pages of its appendix, the IAASB brings the essential combination of intelligence and technical skills. Well it should, charged with the promulgation of international standards on auditing (ISA’s), thus conversant with such abstruse but centrally relevant topics as the auditor’s responsibility for published information other than financial statements (ISA 720), and use of “emphasis of matter” and other paragraphs in an auditor’s report (ISA 706).
Among the most prominent of those heard from, and least likely to offer substantive contributions, is the United Kingdom’s upper legislative chamber, whose Economic Affairs Committee has this spring gotten its lordly knickers in a twist over the bogus suggestion of a malign influence of international accounting standards on the crisis-era reporting of the British banks (here), and also prodded the UK’s Office of Fair Trading into an inquiry as to the market dominance of the Big Four (here) – yet another tedious exercise destined to yield neither surprises nor constructive suggestions.
Joining the Lords in fullness of volume and emptiness of ideas has been EU markets commissioner Michel Barnier, whose “green paper” consultation served mainly to remind anyone interested of the capacity of European bureaucrats to sacrifice forests of trees to document the lowest-hanging fruit on a fragile bush (here).
The Americans arrived on May 5, when the chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, James Doty, promised a “concept release” this summer “to consider how the auditor’s report can be changed to provide more useful, relevant and timely information” (here).
Where the IAASB suffers a gap between competence and authority, of course, is in its lack of muscle to carry out its aspirations. Sponsorship and support of senior regulators are required, led by the Americans, for a legislative re-engineering of the liability landscape, because assurance in any innovative area can only be designed and delivered if relieved from the devastating exposure to hindsight second-guessing that today shackles the auditors to their obsolete model.
Fantasize, for a moment, an “age of wisdom” in which the IAASB and the PCAOB actually made common cause. What might be accomplished?
The IAASB release makes the obligatory musings on possible adjustments to the current report itself – whether to move the opinion paragraph to the top, or to push the explanatory language to a footnote. But cosmetic niceties are inconsequential, as the grown-up technicians surely realize; knowledgeable readers would be neither confused nor influenced by this syntactical re-arrangement of the deckchairs, and others simply would not care.
Once past political correctness, however, the IAASB does press into important new territory, recognizing “the demand for additional, and more pertinent, information about entities and the processes that support the quality of their financial information.”
Its delicate suggestion of “perceptions that auditor reporting is not meeting the needs of financial statement users” is a rhetorical bow to the tensions among competing constituencies and the understandable retreat into euphemism – where what is called for is removal of this barrier to clear thinking and precise articulation.
Teasing the blunt inference out of the IAASB’s sensitivity, today’s audit report is obsolete and, beyond compliance for which Doty and the other regulators are acutely self-interested, delivers no real user value.
If it were an old horse, it would be given due respect for its decades of good service -- then the worn-out old nag would be led off to the knacker’s yard and given the humane dispatch its dumb loyalty deserves.
Within the scope of the IAASB’s standard-setting, it lists readily identifiable subjects for auditor contribution:
- “Corporate governance arrangements.
- “Business model, including the sustainability thereof.
- “Enterprise-wide risk management.
- “Internal controls and financial reporting processes.
- “Key performance indicators.”
The release further tables the desirability and value of auditor insights in such financial reporting issues as:
- “The quality of the entity’s internal controls and financial reporting processes.
- “Qualitative aspects of the entity’s accounting policies, including the relative conservatism or aggressiveness reflected in management’s selected policies.
- “The auditor’s assessment of management’s critical accounting judgments and estimates, including where each critical judgment or estimate falls within a range of possible results.
- “The quality and effectiveness of the entity’s governance structure and risk management, and the quality and effectiveness of its management.”
Here lies real opportunity. The IAASB solicits comments until September 16. Disinterest, silence and the retention of the status quo should not be tolerable options.
Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. Comments and suggestions are invited and welcome, and subscription sign-up is easy and free – both at the Main page.
Comments