Globalized as the issues challenging the accounting profession have become, London is the current hot-spot, so it was my pleasure this week to offer this guest post for the largely US-based readership of Going Concern – also a chance here to offer my thanks, a major hat-tip and Godspeed to Caleb Newquist as he moves on, and looking forward to working with Jason Bramwell:
A drunk, searching on hands and knees under a street lamp, tells the inquiring police, “I’ve lost my keys – over there in the dark alley.”
“Then why look here?” they ask, perplexed.
“Because the light’s better here.”
In the City of London, where the modern audit profession was born in the Victorian era, no fewer than three separate inquiries have been launched into the business and performance of the dominant Big Four accounting firms and the fitness for purpose of their UK regulator, the Financial Reporting Council.
As for the chances of anything beneficial emerging, instead of detrimental unintended consequences for the stability and viability of Big Audit? There are ample reasons for doubt.
The leaders of the inquiries have set out their stalls, with their aims on full display:
- Stephen Haddrill, CEO of the FRC, put a target on the back of the Big Four in January, telling a parliamentary committee that, “we feel there should be more competition in the major accounting and audit area” – echoed in March in the FRC’s strategic plan (page 7): “As a regulator we cannot be content that just four large firms dominate the market for audit services.”
- Haddrill’s invitation to the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the prospects that the Big Four should be stripped to “audit only” was taken up with enthusiasm by its new head, Andrew Tyrie, quoted as telling a parliamentary committee that “the ‘competition’ aspect of the Big Four is ‘certainly’ something that needs to be looked at.”
- And the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has triggered a broad review of the remit, structure and performance of the FRC, under the leadership of Sir John Kingman, whose call for evidence of June 6, 2018, includes as a starting premise in its Foreword that in the Big Audit market “there are well-documented structural competition weaknesses.”
With their opening biases so declared, the approach of all three scape-goating exercises is the familiar “ready … fire … aim” – that is:
- Detailed further admiration of issues long since fully articulated at tedious length.
- Intense and splenetic venting and finger-pointing by the profession’s most ardent critics.
- And re-hashing – and even possible imposition – of “solutions” already examined and found wanting for effectiveness or achievability.
Focus on these subsidiary areas will at best – and least damaging -- generate bulging records of compelling irrelevance, when such foundational topics should be pursued instead as:
- A broad-based search for consensus on the shared aspirations and goals to be served by a Big Audit function fit for modern purpose.
- Assessment of the barriers to achievement, including candid recognition of the need to re-examine the on-going validity and relevance of long-held beliefs of dubious current value.
- Enlistment of the active involvement of all capital markets participants whose participation and buy-in is necessary.
The prospects do not give cause for optimism. Politicians and regulators are consistent in displaying constraints on their vision, commitment to short-term motion as a substitute for long-term progress, and readiness to apply yesterday’s tools to tomorrow’s problems.
Examples are as close to hand as the negative effect on auditor choice generated by the FRC’s 2012 requirement for mandatory re-tender, leading not to its declared goal of increased competition, but contrarily this March to Grant Thornton’s withdrawal from competing for FTSE 350 audit engagements, or the cascade of American corporate failures in the 2007-2008 financial crisis despite the bally-hooed aspirations of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act of 2002.
Collectively the troika of Messrs. Haddrill, Tyrie and Kingman has potential to run the Big Audit model headlong into the ditch, by driving toward the future with eyes staring fixedly at the road behind. If so the dispiriting prospect is that they might manage perversely to regulate the Big Four firms into a fatal decline to disintegration.
It will take a level of shared vision and skilled diplomacy not often seen in such a complex multi-party setting to avoid such an outcome – much less to reach what might be called success.
Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. Comments and feedback are invited and welcome, and subscription sign-up is easy and free – both at the Main page.
Comments