Big Four dismiss claims they are failing shareholders

by Beth Abel

More from this author

22 Feb 2013

  • Comments
Competition Commission Victoria House

THE COMPETITION COMMISSION'S suggestion that auditors focus on satisfying management interests above the interests of shareholders has been met with disbelief from many of the Big Four accountancy firms.

Among the findings of the commission's preliminary report into the Big Four's dominance of the large company audit market - which include claims companies are overpaying for lower-quality audits - was that auditors have misaligned incentives between shareholders and management.

The commission's argument has been dismissed by the Big Four. KPMG's chairman and senior partner Simon Collins argued that "audit objectivity and appropriate levels of scepticism are the mainstays of what we do". He added that audit quality and competition in the UK is strong.  

Richard Sexton, head of reputation and public policy at PwC, said the firm is "clear that we report to the shareholders and engage with the Audit Committee as their representatives". He also claimed the report had "grossly underestimated" the critical role that audit committees play in "protecting the interests" of shareholders.

Head of assurance at Ernst & Young Hywel Ball echoed the sentiment. Ball disagreed that the audit market is "not serving shareholders", and that there were important omissions in the report about how the framework corporate governance and regulation works.

"There is no mention of the role of the chair of boards and the senior independent directors in representing and safeguarding shareholder interests, nor of the importance of unitary boards themselves," Ball said.

"We think the somewhat stark description in black and white terms of the role and power of the finance directors and their motives does not represent the real world as we experience it.

"We...are focused first and foremost on audit quality - it is our primary responsibility and directly in the interests of the shareholders of the companies we audit."

The commission said that lack of competition leads to higher prices, lower quality and less innovation for companies. It proposed more frequent reviews and extended reporting requirements, as well as strengthening accountability and independence by giving audit committees and shareholders greater control of external audit.

However, Deloitte argued that evidence gathered by the commission was "not properly reflected in some of the provisional findings".

"We don't believe the evidence supports the contention that current market conditions have led to unnecessarily higher prices, lower quality or less innovation," said David Barnes, partner and UK head of public policy Deloitte.

High costs of switching auditor, difficulty comparing alternative auditors and experience and reputational barriers for mid-tier firms to expand in the audit market were all found to be competition-restricting factors.

Grant Thornton welcomed the recognition that there are barriers to entry which prevent "capable and credible audit service providers" from competing in the market, while fellow mid-tier firm BDO said the findings had confirmed the "significant flaw" in the structure of the audit market.

Mazars applauded the findings, and added the commission's focus should now be on "effective remedies", such as a reform package to help additional players gain market share within the next three-to-five years.

"No one can deny now that a major programme of reform is required as an urgent matter of public interest," said David Herbinet, head of public interest markets at Mazars.

"In addition to the primary list of potential remedies established by the Competition Commission, full consideration should also be given to restrictions on non-audit services and the potential contribution of co-audit," he added.

Visitor comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
display:none

Add your comment

We won't publish your address


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

Submit
  • Send

Financial Planning and Performance AnalystCabinet Office-Greater London-Competitive

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Newsletters

Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials

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

budget-management

Why budgeting fails: One management system is not enough

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.

cchcover

iXBRL: Taking stock. Looking forward

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.