Probably unknown to the generality of the public, the debate over the selection of auditors has been gaining momentum, even to the point of becoming a major controversy or crisis – but not on the scale of threatening to set off the Third World War. Actually, it has been simmering for several years. It was “The Times” which pulled the trigger with its front-page report on September 3, 2018.
Headline: “BIG FOUR REFORMS FAIL TO BOOST COMPETITION”
“KPMG and Deloitte now
audit as many of Britain’s largest companies as PWC, which has long held the
top spot, after winning 14 new FTSE 100 clients between them in just over a
decade.
PWC audited 41 of
Britain’s largest 100 companies in 2005. It has been losing such contracts
since the introduction of European rules in June 2016 that required companies
to put the job out to tender once every decade and to change auditor at least
every 20 years. It now audits 27 of Britain’s top 100 firms, according to Adviser
Rankings, a data provider.
Meanwhile, since 2005
Deloitte has increased the number of FTSE 100 companies that it audits from 19
to 27, while KPMG also has 27 clients, up from 21 in 2005.
The three-way split
between PWC, KPMG and Deloitte suggests that European rules designed to improve
competition and increase choice in the audit market have failed, as large
companies required to change their auditors repeatedly have appointed another
firm from the accounting industry’s Big Four.
Companies have shifted between
the same accounting firms despite them being dragged into scandals such as the
collapse of Carillion, the public services contractor, and BHS, the department
stores chain.
PWC was fined a record £6.5million
by the Financial Reporting Council over its audit for BHS in June, while in
recent months KPMG was fined £3.2 million over its audit at Quindell, a
technology company, and £3 million for work at Ted Baker, the fashion retailer.
Deloitte is being taken to an enforcement tribunal by the FRC and could face a
fine of up to £10 million over audits for Autonomy, the British software+
business.
EY, the other member of
the Big Four elite audits 17 FTSE 100 companies, down from 19 in 2005, Last week
the nine biggest accounting firms – the Big Four plus Grant Thorton, BDO,
Mazars. RSM and Moore Stephens – handed a list of proposals to the Competition
and Markets Authority to improve competition.”
The
“Financial Times” which had kept its powder dry, unleased a powerful salvo from
Grant Thorton on its front page, ten days later on 13th September
2018.
Headline: “AUDITOR SELECTION FOR BIG COMPANIES SHOULD
BE NATIONALISED, SAYS GRANT THORTON”
“Grant Thornton has
called for the nationalisation of auditor selection among Britain’s largest
companies in an effort to break the oligopoly of the big four firms.
The UK’s fifth
largest accounting firm said the radical proposal would improve a swath of weaknesses
in the audit market, including widespread conflicts of interest and poor audit
quality, which have heavily undermined confidence in the profession.
Jonathan Riley,
head of quality and reputation at Grant Thornton, said the firm wanted auditor
selection for large listed companies and other public interest entities to be
carried out by a public body such as a newly established commission or the
National Audit Office.
Mr Riley said
placing responsibility for auditor procurement with an independent public body
would address the “perennial issue that audit clients select and pay the
auditor”. He added that this would help restore trust and integrity in the
market at a time when there “seems to have been a loss in impartiality and
independence”.
Grant Thornton has
floated the idea with Britain’s main political parties, the CBI, the
competition watchdog and the ICAEW, an industry body. The firm said it expected
companies and the big four to be resistant to the proposal, although it had
received warmer than expected feedback from the CBI and the ICAEW.
Gervase MacGregor,
an audit partner at BDO, the sixth largest firm in the UK, said he was
initially sceptical about the benefits of a national procurement body for
auditor appointments, but said he has “come around to the idea”. But he added
that BDO’s stated position of introducing market share caps to address
competition concerns would be more effective.
Grant Thornton
additionally wants a ban on accounting firms offering any kind of consulting or
advisory work to major audit clients — a measure also backed by BDO and
privately by some partners within the big four.
Nationalising
auditor procurement would theoretically address two significant concerns about
the audit market. First, that auditors are overly beholden to company
management and fail to flag problems at the companies they vet because they
want to hold on to their fees at all costs.
Second, that
company management teams are biased towards selecting the big four firms,
helping to entrench their already dominant position in the market. At present,
EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PwC audit 98 per cent of the constituents in the FTSE
350 index of Britain’s largest listed companies.
Grant Thornton
believes that if the UK adopted the proposal, it would be the only country
globally where auditor selection for privately owned companies would in effect
be nationalised.
The proposed system
would mirror an existing framework for auditor appointments in Britain’s public
sector, which have been overseen since 2014 by Public Sector Audit Appointments
Limited.It appoints auditors and sets audit fees for local government and
police bodies, helping to remove big four bias and enabling smaller firms such
as Grant Thorton, which has an estimated 40 per cent market share in the public
sector to compete.”
As
the steamy cauldron was threatening to boil over, it was the timely
intervention of the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
England and Wales [ICAEW], Mr. Paul Aplin that provided some element of
reassurance by exhorting Chartered accountants to be morally energetic. In
addition, the Institute released the following statement in support of “The Financial Times”: “AUDIT REFORM IS
NEEDED BUT WILL TAKE TIME”
“The Financial Times is
absolutely right that a shake-up of the audit market for large listed companies
is now urgently required. ICAEW agrees a market share cap is fast emerging as a
viable way to bring about real, sustainable and beneficial change.
We also need to consider the
interests and behaviours of buyers – in this case the audit committees of FTSE
350 companies — so that going beyond the Big Four is not seen by them, and
those they answer to, as a controversial choice.
But we must be realistic
about timescales. Even if, as you suggest, the Big Four agree to give the next
tier of firms access to their technology, and even if clients get fully on
board with using these “challengers”, there is a simple issue of scale.
For these firms, getting
to a position where they can take on large multinational audits will take time:
this is not an issue of quality — there is plenty of that — but of capacity.
Nor is it insurmountable,
but we must have realistic expectations with regard to how long it will take.
Impatience, and the imposition of simplistic or hasty measures, risk not only
adverse unintended consequences but could significantly damage global
perceptions of the UK as a place to do business.
There is a broad consensus
across the accountancy profession that we are at a watershed moment, and that
change is necessary. There is also agreement around what might be practicable
and effective. It will not serve the public interest if, in the interest of
securing a sprint finish, we fall at the final hurdle.
- Michael Izza
Chief Executive, ICAEW,
London
However,
thatwas not the end of the matter. CNN went viral with itsBREAKING NEWS:“THANKS BUT NO THANKS”
“Grant Thornton has
said it will notpitch for the lucrative job of auditorto Goldman Sachs, the
investmentbank, in Europe, despite a campaignby MPs from three Commons
selectcommittees to persuade bankingregulators to sign off on theproposed
appointment.
Chief Executive of
Grant Thorton, Sacha Romanovitch said that theaccounting firm would not pitch
forthe audit unless it saw a significantshift in how big corporations inBritain
bought audit services. Thisyear it stopped bidding for auditcontracts from FTSE
350 companiesbecause it was too expensive tocompete with the Big Four firms.
"We've made
our position reallyclear and we're not changing forGoldman Sachs just because
we'vebeen invited [to pitch]," she said.
"We've ruled
ourselves out for now."
Goldman Sachs has
had talks withGrant Thornton as the bankapproaches a review of its auditingin
the UK in 2022. However, theBank of England's PrudentialRegulation Authority
has expressedconcern about Grant Thornton's ability to audit a big bank. MPs
accused the Bank of prohibiting competition in the audit market by querying
whether Goldman should appoint a non-Big Four firm.”
It
was left to Saturday Night Live hosted by Colin Jost and Michael Che as well as
Trevor Noah on the Daily Show to zoom in on Sacha Romanovitch the big boss
[Czarina of Grant Thorton] who they chose as the new rival to both President
Donald Trump and Sacha Baron Cohen (British actor, comedian, screenwriter, and
film producer most notably known for creating and portraying the role of ‘Borat
Sagdiyev’ in Da Ali G Show).
The background to it all was the front-page story in
“The Times”on October 5. 2018:
“MY JOB ISN’T TO BE POPULAR – BUT THIS FELT HORRIBLE”
“There was no mistaking
the pain when the blow struck. A group claiming to representthe views of 15
colleagues at Grant Thornton had sent copies of Sacha Romanovitch's performance
review to newspapers, alongside claims that she had "misdirected" the
firm. It hurt like a gut-punch delivered over mobile phone as the onlyfemale
boss of a big British accountingfirm was on her way home to Devonfrom her
office in London.
"It felt horrible,
but I had to step back,think what can I learn from this andremember that as a
chief executive myjob isn't to be popular."
She may be more popular
than sherealised at the time. Since then sheclaims to have received about
900messages of support, with colleaguesand peers at rival firms sending cards,emails
and messages on social media.
Ms. Romanovitch undeniably
hasmade waves at Grant Thornton and inthe wider accounting profession in
thefour years since she took on the job ofchief executive. A former audit and
taxpartner who joined Grant Thornton 30years ago, she immediately capped herown
remuneration after being voted into the post in 2015. As a result, she receives
no more than 20 times the average salary at the firm, far less than other city
bosses. She also led a move to turn Grant Thorton into a shared enterprise, in
which all its 4,500 workers have a stake in the firm, and decided that the
business would stop bidding for audit contracts from Britain’s largest listed
companies, which dealt a blow to efforts by Deloitte, PWC, KPMG and EY to
convince politicians and regulators not to intervene to improve competition in
the market.
That appears to have
angered some of her colleagues. The group of dissenting partners accused her of
damaging profits by focusing on a higher social purpose" and said that she
had a "socialist agenda" that could damage the firm'sstanding as a
serious challenger to the Big Four.
"When you're going
through changehaving that resistance is completelynormal," Ms Romanovitch
said, speaking publicly for the first time since theleak. "In fact, if
you're trying to run abusiness with total consensus on everydecision, you're
probably running abusiness that will fail."
She said that being chief
executive ofGrant Thornton was a lonely jobbecause she had to make decisions
thatsome partners would find painful in theshort term in order to create a
businessthat she believes will be sustainable inthe future and doing it at a
time thatthe accounting profession is facingintense scrutiny from MPs and
regulators and probably will be subject tosignificant upheaval.
"If I've got 80 per
cent of thepartnership with me, that's enough tothink I'm in a sensible
place," she said.Those decisions could include moves toreview Grant
Thornton's 27 offices inthe UK and have resulted already in anumber of
restructures that have removed some partners' autonomy tomanage their own
practices and clients.
The scrutiny of Britain's
accountantscomes after several scandals in the auditmarket and a series of
company collapses that have raised concerns about thequality of audits. The
competitionwatchdog could launch a full investigation into the sector that, in
turn, critics suggest could lead to a break-up ofthe Big Four," Ms
Romanovitch said. "It would be a bizarre move because it wouldn't improve
audit quality or stop conflicts of interest.”
Instead, the existing
model of financial reporting and how companies are audited needs to be
overhauled. “We have an audit product where increasingly there is reams of
legislation and boxes to fill in that make it harder for an auditor to step
back and ask what is actually going on at the company. The solution is not
layering on more legislation or penalties.”
In the next few weeks, Ms
Romanovitch will seek a second term as chief executive, a role put to a vote of
the firm’s 200 partners. Grant Thorton’s board will sound out whether any partner
at the firm wants to challenge her leadership, although a number of partners at
the firm privately have described the idea of running against her as “career
suicide” and believe that she is likely to run unopposed.
“Fundamentally, do I think
I’m the right person to lead this firm now? Yes.Do I think there is unfinished
business, in terms of delivering what I set out to achieve? Absolutely.” If the
partners decide to vote against her, she won’t“cling on...you can’t run a
business if you’re held hostage to a few people who are unhappy”.
The
classic summation of the consequences of the conflict between morality and
indifference has been provided by Pastor Martin Niermöller’s vintage poem:
“first they came for the
socialists and I did not speak out – Because I was not a socialist
Then they came for the
trade unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the
Jews and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me –
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Those
poignant lines will haunt us for eternity as Martin’s confessional testament
regarding the cowardice of German scholars who witnessed at first hand the rise
of the Nazis (led by Adolf Hitler) to power and the subsequent extermination of
their targets, segment by segment and group after group.
Thankfully,
not everyone has taken the oath of silence, the first Military Governor of
Plateau State, Nigeria, and a leader of the defunct National Democratic
Coalition [NADECO], Ambassador (Air Commodore) Dan Suleiman (Rtd.) has served
us notice:
“Like back in the days of General
Sani Abacha, Nigeria is on the edgeof a precipice. Nigerians are divided along
various fault lines – religions, tribal and so on. It is not a situation where
anybody will be happy to live in. We have had better days in Nigeria before but
these are worse times.”
We
also have the incisive intervention of a former Governor of Anambra State,
Nigeria, Mr. Peter Obi who declared on CNN:
“Nigeria’s economy remains
on life support. The national debt may spiral out od control. When you keep
borrowing for consumption, it gets to a stage when you cannot control it. Some
people take the simplistic approach of comparing debt to GDP [Gross Domestic
Product]; but our GDP is low. Therefore. We should be looking at debt to
revenue.”
It
was “ThisDay”newspaper of September 21, 2018 which spilled the beans with its front-page
report: “NBS: DOMESTIC, EXTERNAL DEBTS
HIT ₦15.63 TRILLION, U.S. $ 22.08 BILLION IN Q2”
“Nigeria’s total domestic
and foreign debt stock stood at N15.63 trillion and $22.08 billion
respectively, as at June 30, 2018, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has
stated.
This is as the
Statistician General of the Federation/Chief Executive, National Bureau of
Statistics (NBS), Dr. Yemi Kale, Thursday promised that the days when agencies
of government published poor statistical figures and got away without questions
being asked were gone.
According to the Nigerian
Domestic and Foreign Debt (Q2 2018), posted on its website, out of the N3.48
trillion total domestic debts borrowing by states, Lagos accounted for 14.88
per cent, while Anambra had the least debt in the category with a contribution
of 0.08 per cent to the total domestic debt stock.
However, the foreign
borrowing consisted of $10.88 billion from multilateral agencies; $274.98
million from bilateral (AFD) and another $2.12 billion bilateral from the Exim
Bank of China, JICA, India and KFW, while $8.80 billion was commercial.
Lagos State had the
highest foreign debt profile among the 36 states and the Federal Capital
Territory (FCT) accounting for 34.17 per cent and 6.57 percent in national
share.
Its external and domestic
debts were recorded at $1.45 billion and N517.36 billion or 14.88 per cent of
share in state total.
Edo accounted for 6.57 per
cent of external loans at $279.02 million; Kaduna, 5.48 per cent or $232.96
million; Cross River, 4.56 per cent or $193.79 million and Bauchi, 3.18 per
cent or $134.90 million.
The foreign debt profile
of Bayelsa, Benue and Borno stood at $57.25 million, $34.75 million and $22.29
million respectively.
The Statistician General
of the Federation/Chief Executive, National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Dr.
Yemi Kale has promised that the days when agencies of government published poor
statistical figures and get away were gone.
He noted that the public
has become better enlightened as “they question and interrogate every figure or
information we publish.”
Speaking at the opening of
the sensitisation workshop for the conduct of the 2018/19 National Living
Standard Survey (NLSS), which held in Keffi, Nasarawa State, he harped on the
need for quality data representation going forward.
“As Statistician General
of the Federation, I can easily estimate that, I spend about 50 per cent of my
working day, and sometimes weekends, explaining and defending numbers or
information that we publish in NBS.
People now want to know
where we got the numbers, how we got the numbers and what the numbers mean for
them as individuals, businesses or for their communities.
While we welcome this new
enthusiasm and public engagement in statistics, we also have no alternative but
to do all in our powers to get the best quality numbers possible.”
He said the NLSS had
become critical in view of all the visible socio-economic challenges being
experienced in the country, particularly security, unemployment and
environmental constraints.
He said government and
partners at various levels require the household survey “to help them
understand what is going on, particularly how these challenges are affecting
households and communities in the country.
“If we ever needed to
generate reliable and good quality information, that time is now.”
According to the SGF, the
survey which determines poverty index was critical not just for the statistical
system but also the country in general.
Kale said: “Among the
plethora of socio-economic variables and indicators it provides, it is from
this exercise that we derive statistically sound indicators for measuring
poverty and inequality in Nigeria.
“It also serves as a major
source of data for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda for tracking
Nigeria’s attainment or otherwise, of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs).”
However, he said the NLSS,
would for the first time be carried out using electronic means of data
collection.
Also, the daily calorie
threshold used in computing the poverty rate had been dropped to 2,500 from the
previous 3,000 calories per day in the current exercise.
He said: “The last time
this survey was carried out was 2009/2010, it’s meant to be done every five
years but due to funding and some challenges we were not able to conduct it in
2014. We have been working on this for three to four years.
It’s a year long stuff,
ordinarily you will not find poverty estimation until 12 months and the reason
is, as we all know we all have spending patterns at home and they are not the
same every month, so we have to take the overall expenditure for the whole year
so that the periods of high and low expenditures are captured.
So it’s going to take one
year for us to get the final poverty and inequality numbers. But like I
mentioned earlier there are some indicators that we can be publishing quarterly
as we go along but the poverty numbers will not be ready until 12 months.”
What
has sent alarm bells ringing is the wake-up call by the Bishop of Sokoto
Diocese, Nigeria Rev. Matthew Kukah on the theme:
“HOW TO MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK FOR AFRICA”
“Democracy requires lots
and lots of patience and hard work. And I think we are mightily grateful to
ourselves as a people that despite the frustrations, despite the temptations,
unlike before: we have witnessed 16 to 17 years of patience on the side of the
military because if it were 20 to 30 years ago, we would have had at least
three or four coups already. I think it is a measure of the faith of the
military itself on the urgency of democratization that has kept them in the
barracks. But I think the politicians and the political class cannot take this
patience for granted. What we have experienced in the last few years has made
us a laughing stock of other nations.”
Indeed,
the statement attributed to the Deputy Senate President, Sen. Ike Ekeweremadu
goes beyond serving as a severe jolt:
“The problem in Nigeria is
that our democracy is receding. Who says army cannot take over, let us not joke
with our democracy that is the issue. The house of a senator was destroyed in
Kaduna state; we are talking about Kwankwaso who was stopped from going to his
state where he ruled for eight years. In Kaduna, Shehu Sani cannot organize a
meeting and we are talking about a democracy?”
- Bashorun J.K.
Randle is a former President of
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) and former
Chairman of KPMG Nigeria and Africa Region. He is
currently the Chairman, J.K. Randle Professional Services. Email: jkrandleintuk@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment