Category: PCAOB

The PCAOB Might be Caving on Auditor Signatures

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for lawn chair.jpgLet’s not jump to the conclusion that the PCAOB will scrap the whole auditor sign-off proposal just yet. They’ve been doing a hell of a job making auditors’ lives difficult lately ly wants to feel like it’s an important part of the bureaucracy. Especially since their lives are potentially at stake.
But the belly-aching on this one by the usual suspects is reaching fever pitch. They are saying enough is enough and that their partners’ names should not be written in blood for all to see.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the firms hate this idea since the owners of the firms are being given explicit instructions to put their names — and asses — on the line.


The PCAOB received a grant total of 23 comments on the concept release and all but two were negative. Not surprisingly, the two that weren’t negative came from “investor representatives”.
Francine McKenna gave you the lowdown on the firms responses in her GC post from September 30 and it sounds like it’s working.
Here’s a quote from PCAOB Deputy Chief Auditor Greg Scates:

“The board is going to discuss this and make some decisions in this fourth quarter on what to do and whether to move forward in this area. This is not uncommon in Europe. Partners do sign the report in other countries. In our country, of course, this is not the way we’ve been doing business, so it is a new concept. We’ll see what the board wants to do as they look through the comment letters and make a decision on what to do.”

A whopping 21 negative comments and the PCAOB is getting cold feet? Get better at spreading the word to people that will take your side, PCAOB. Were you just testing the waters with this or did you really want to make auditors accountable?
But maybe the firms got the Board members’ personal side:

Even more disturbing than the potential liability exposure is the specter of individual auditors coming under public attack by disgruntled investors and a “lynch mob” media mentality. “Engagement partners and their families could be subject to unwarranted and unwelcome communications from shareholders who are unhappy with a particular company’s performance in matters that are wholly unrelated to the completeness and accuracy of the financial statements,” Grant Thornton warned.

There are a lot of irrational people out there we’ll give you that, but a media circus outside an auditor’s house? Sort of like a bean counter paparazzi? That could be kind of fun, couldn’t it?
Oh, but what about the websites that would get put up?:

Groveland, Mass.-based CPA Frank Gorrell, for one, warned that identifying engagement partners by name could prompt irate investors to set up Internet sites to “vent their frustrations” by criticizing individual accountants and even publishing their home addresses online.

Sweet Jesus. Apparently accountants want to be invisible. No criticism for me, thankyouvermuch. And venting frustrations? On a website? Who ever heard of such a thing?
AUDIT FIRM REGULATION: No Autographs [Web CPA]
PCAOB May Scrap Auditor Sign-off Proposal [Web CPA]

Auditors, You’re Just Going to Have Start Finding Fraud, Okay?

overwhelmed.jpgBecause that’s your job, right? The PCAOB is giving consideration to new auditing standards that would presume that certain related party transactions would constitute a fraud risk.
This just serves as another example of auditors’ responsibility for discovering fraud reaching a ridiculously unrealistic level.


According to Web CPA, “Although such standards have been in the talking stage at the PCAOB for at least five years, there is fresh interest in this area now because related-party fraud has been a factor in a number of recent corporate financial scandals.”
Classic reactive measures being employed by the Board here. No sense in developing any kind of standard until after something happens. The Board hasn’t really been doing a bang-up job on much of anything but no matter, the effectiveness of a government regulator is not the issue here.
Auditors, you’re being duped. That’s unacceptable and according to some, the procedures you currently perform over related party transactions just won’t do any more:

But some officials at the PCAOB as well as members of the accounting profession have suggested that these standards may not be sufficient. At least part of the problem involves what some have described as widespread related-party transaction fraud slipping under the radar screen of auditors.

As we’ve mentioned in the past, the PCAOB simply is not satisfied with your ability to follow the current rules, auditors. Accordingly, the PCAOB will make more rules for you to follow until they are proven inadequate and then more rules will be written and on and on. You get the idea. It’ll be routine before you know it, if it isn’t already.
PCAOB Mulls New Related-Party Standards [Web CPA]
Also see: Fair Value, Audit Committes, Related Parties Highlights Of Day 2, PCAOB SAG Meeting [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]

PCAOB: We’re Not Saying Perfect Audits, Just Pretty Perfect Audits

Thumbnail image for epic-failure.thumbnail.jpgThe public understanding of what auditors actually do is, to put it mildly, frustrating. If you were ask the average dude on the street what auditors’ responsibilities were, “Find fraud” would probably be the first thing that you would hear.
With all the public outrage against everything remotely related to finance or accounting, politicians feel like they have to do something. This usually amounts to putting pressure on bureaucrats, who in turn make rules to appease said politicians who can then point to accomplishments.


The PCAOB is no exception, and regardless of its potential extinction, has a go-getter attitude that includes potentially making the public’s perception more of a reality.
FEI Financial Reporting Blog:

Although not part of the PCAOB’s formal standard-setting agenda for the upcoming year, some SAG members argued there was a need for the PCAOB to revisit the fundamental fraud standard (SAS 99) as a standalone or ‘foundational’ standard, in much the same way as the PCAOB is in the process of re-proposing its suite of risk assessment standards as ‘foundational’ standards.

You probably know where this is going:

In response to questions, Silvers said, “We should not expect that every audit is a forensic audit… that’s absolutely not what I’m saying.” However, he added, “I think we need to move the dial a little bit so auditors have some greater obligation than is currently embodied in the current fraud standard, to have an obligation to act when there is reasonable suspicion of fraud.”
“This was subject to some extensive discussion in the Treasury committee (Treasury’s Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession or ACAP],” said Silvers, adding, “some people, Lynn [Turner], may feel my approach is not tough enough, some people felt we should move to some absolute liability standard [i.e.] if you don’t find fraud, it’s the auditors fault; but it’s also not my view that looking for fraud is not related to the audit, that doesn’t parse with the public’s [perception] of the audit profession.”

Our emphasis. So not every audit will be a forensic audit, so, just most of them? That’s a relief.
So not only do you need to get way better at auditing fair value, now the brain trust at the PCAOB is considering putting more auditor flesh on the hook when it comes to finding fraud. So not absolute assurance but it’s getting there.
PCAOB Announces Ambitious Agenda; May Be Time to ‘Dial Up’ on Fraud, Silvers Says [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]