THE Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has come under fire after publishing research it said showed there was no conclusive evidence that the mandatory rotation of audit firms improves the quality of the checks they complete on company accounts.
Leading commentator Prem Sikka, professor of accounting at Essex University, described the research as a poor document and said he was not surprised by the conclusions apparently drawn by a body he described as a trade association for auditors.
"My undergraduate students could do better," Mr Sikka said.
He was commenting as the debate about whether accounting firms should only be allowed to audit company accounts for a limited period is set to enter a crucial phase.
ICAS published a paper called "What do we know about mandatory audit firm rotation" in the month before the European Parliament is due to discuss such a reform of the EU's audit market.
Calls for mandatory rotation of audits intensified amid the fall out from the banking crisis.
Critics of the profession have seized on the fact some big banks came close to collapse months after receiving clean audit reports to suggest the current system is not working.
Some have noted that auditors can make huge amounts from additional fees for work in areas such as tax.
Champions of reform believe rotation will help ensure the independence of auditors.
The institute said it commissioned independent European academics to identify, consider and evaluate the existing evidence on mandatory audit firm rotation to inform future policy making.
It concluded: "Existing evidence on the impact of mandatory audit firm rotation on audit quality and auditor independence is inconclusive."
Noting that countries including India and Italy have introduced mandatory rotation in the past, the report published by ICAS said: "The main argument in favour of mandatory audit firm rotation is an increase in auditor 'independence in fact', ultimately leading to higher audit quality.
"In other words, long tenure of the auditor might lead to excessive familiarity between auditor and client."
It added: "This argument is largely supported by experimental research evidence with auditors behaving more independently in regimes that require rotation.
"Most analytical research also confirms a positive effect of rotation on independence, especially in cases of high market concentration."
However, the report said a substantial proportion of the reviewed archival studies support the notion that mandatory rotation might heighten the risk of audit failure since auditors are unable to develop in-depth client-specific knowledge.
The report added: "There is wide agreement that mandatory audit rotation would result in an increase in costs."
The authors noted experiences from Italy and South Korea suggested rotation might decrease rather than increase market competition.
"Further empirical research to directly investigate the (potential) effects of mandatory audit firm rotation is required," the report concluded.
Mr Sikka said the report failed to look at counter evidence in academic literature.
He said: "It does not look at even one example of a real audit failure. There's no real world event that's examined."
"This is really a trade association trying to protect the niches of its members," concluded Mr Sikka, who wants audits of banks to be entrusted to a designated regulator.
Asked about Mr Sikka's criticim, David Wood, executive director of technical policy and services at ICAS, said the institute was in some respects a trade association that represents its members. However, he said ICAS acted according to an over-riding requirement to serve the public interest.
Mr Wood said the paper was a thorough review of the available research evidence completed by experts from across Europe.
ICAS said its Research Committee had been happy to support the project but the views expressed in the report did not necessarily represent those of the institute.
A separate review commissioned by ICAS concluded the full impact of joint audits was still not known.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article