10 Mar 2009
Royal Bank of Scotland paid its auditor Deloitte £58.8 million in fees just as the UK taxpayer stepped in to prevent the ailing lender from collapse, the Herald has revealed.
Deloitte was handed a £27.4 million pay rise on top of the 31.4 million in fees it earned in 2007, according to RBS’ most recent annual report.
When Deloitte signed off on the troubled institution’s accounts in 2008, it did not qualify its audit opinion on any grounds, the report shows.
The firm will be recommended for re-appointment as auditor when the bank’s shareholders convene for their annual meeting on April 3.
Part of Deloitte’s increased fee revenue is due to RBS expanding in size after swallowing parts of ABN Amro in 2007. Besides the audit, Deloitte was paid £20.1 million for other services provided to RBS.
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.
Visitor comments Add your comment
What is the problem?
I think in order to write an article about auditors and fees, one needs to actually understand what services Deloitte has actually performed. You will probablyu find that the fee received is actually way below what should actually be charged. Stirring up hysteria by using emotive, large numbers without any understanding of what you are actually taling about is totally unprofessional.
Posted by: NB, 25 Mar 2009 | 00:00