May 22, 2012

Can an Auditor Still be Independent After 100 Years on a Corporate Payroll?

Some big U.S. companies have used the same auditing firms for decades, while others like Procter & Gamble and General Electric have each kept the same firm for more than a century.

Those long-time, cozy relationships have some critics urging the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to encourage tougher, more independent audits by requiring a periodic rotation in auditing firms hired by companies, Reuters reports

"When you look at some of the big audit failures over the years, whether it's Enron or Waste Management, you find instances where they've had the same auditor for in some cases decades," said Barbara Roper, head of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America.

But the Big Four accounting firms -- Deloitte, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, KPMG and Ernst & Young -- are likely to fight any mandatory rotation, which could rob them of lucrative and loyal clients. The firms also contend that good auditing work comes from a detailed understanding of a client company’s operations, which takes time to acquire.

Currently, the partner on an auditing job must be switched every five years, but there is no term limit on the audit firms themselves.

CFTC pick moves forward – The Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday approved President Barack Obama’s Democratic pick for the newest member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency tasked with writing rules for the $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The nomination of Mark Wetjen, 37, now moves to the full Senate, and The New York Times reports that “his chances there are uncertain.” If confirmed, Wetjen would replace Commissioner Michael Dunn, another Democrat, whose term expired in June. Dunn will stay on the CFTC until a replacement is found.

Wetjen, a lawyer, worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) in writing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law last year. 

Republican calls for SEC reform – The Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee called for reorganizing the Securities and Exchange Commission, which he said now operates under “organizational incoherence.”

Spencer Bachus of Alabama introduced a proposal called the “SEC Modernization Act” which would fold the agency’s investor advocate into another unit, while giving more power to an ombudsman to field complaints from businesses. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the proposal, saying that it is an excuse to undercut regulation and underfund the agency.

Former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. told the Washington Post that Bachus’ proposal would be more like an “evisceration” for the agency

General Electric has employed the same auditing firm since 1909, which some critics say is too long for an outside auditor to remain independent in reviewing corporate books.   Paul Sakuma/The Associated Press

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shirley Gao writes for iWatch News. 

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.