PracticeAuditWho needs audit?

Who needs audit?

Is statutory audit still an effective tool?

During a 50-year career I have observed audit from various perspectives –
auditing with a Big Four firm; moving to business as a plc group internal
auditor; then financial controller and commercial director; and latterly as a
general practitioner serving small businesses.

A debate on audit last took place more than ten years ago when exemption for
small companies was first mooted. Step changes since then have enabled several
hundred thousand companies to avoid audit where no significant public interest
exists.

Given recent corporate failures a debate seems appropriate between the
profession, business leaders, government and financial academia to review how
statutory audit matches business and investors’ needs.

Historically the profession has developed financial and ethical standards for
business, with audit seen as an independent statement on the morality of those
entrusted with managing others money.

The profession is also very serious internally about audit, as it establishes
high ethical standards in its members and is rigorously policed by
self-regulation. It is also a licence to earn a great deal in fees, but is our
profession becoming so reliant on the monetary value of audits (plus the
valuable accounting services this may lead to) that it is becoming blind to
audit’s effectiveness? Is our stalwart defence of audit becoming more an act of
self-preservation than delivery of an essential service?

It is probably reasonable to state that the financial affairs of the vast
majority of larger businesses are appropriately managed, with adequate budgetary
control, internal control and internal audit in place. In such circumstances
does statutory audit remain a benefit or a burden – what does business think?

Should a cost benefit analysis of statutory audit for business be prepared?
Does audit meet the needs and communication speed required?

Bad apples exist in all societies, and recent corporate failures suggest that
statutory audit has not deterred errant managers from perpetrating isolated
massive fraud on thousands of investors.

Yet it is to those same investors to whom, after many months, auditors
report. Is there a gap between investors’ expectations or needs and auditors’
‘deliverables’? Should this be reviewed – and fixed?

With failings in financial markets being addressed extensively by the
Treasury, along with the Bank of England and the FSA – isn’t it also time our
profession considered the effectiveness of its contribution from statutory audit
to the wellbeing of our economy?

Peter Mitchell is chairman of the Society of
Professional Accountants and an ICAEW council member

Related Articles

KPMG replaces PwC as Croda auditor

Accounting Firms KPMG replaces PwC as Croda auditor

4d Emma Smith, Managing Editor
EY fined £1.8m over Tech Data audit

Accounting Standards EY fined £1.8m over Tech Data audit

1w Emma Smith, Managing Editor
Top 50+50: Firms post significant growth in new tax and audit rankings

Audit Top 50+50: Firms post significant growth in new tax and audit rankings

1w Emma Smith, Managing Editor
FRC closes KPMG HBOS audit investigation, Treasury Committee expects ‘full explanation’

Accounting Firms FRC closes KPMG HBOS audit investigation, Treasury Committee expects ‘full explanation’

1m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
PwC to audit BBC pay policies following gender pay gap outrage

Accounting Firms PwC to audit BBC pay policies following gender pay gap outrage

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
FRC closes investigation into PwC over Barclays compliance

Accounting Firms FRC closes investigation into PwC over Barclays compliance

2w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
KPMG rocked by South African corruption scandal

Audit KPMG rocked by South African corruption scandal

4w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
BDO replaces Deloitte as Mitie auditor

Audit BDO replaces Deloitte as Mitie auditor

1m Emma Smith, Managing Editor