A third of the audits completed by the UK’s biggest accountancy firms recently fell short of the quality expected the sector watchdog has found.
In a study of 88 audits completed by the seven biggest firms, the Financial Reporting Council found that only two thirds were of a good standard or required limited improvements.
The findings will stoke controversy about the audit business. A series of accountancy firms have faced questions regarding their work in connection with big companies that collapsed.
READ MORE: Regulator investigates Thomas Cook auditors over travel firm's collapse
The FRC said the number of audits requiring more than limited improvements, 29 (33%), remains unacceptable.
Executive director David Rule noted: “While firms have made some improvements and we have observed instances of good practice, it is clear that further progress is required.
“The tone from the top at the firms needs to support a culture of challenge and to back auditors making tough decisions.”
The study covered the work of big four giants Deloitte, PwC, EY and KPMG.
Audits by leading second tier firms BDO, Grant Thornton and Mazars, were also examined.
Mazars performed best of the seven firms whose work was studied while Grant Thornton did worst.
READ MORE: Should accountancy giants cut fees amid coronavirus crisis?
The FRC found four of the five (80%) Mazars audits it reviewed required no more than limited improvements.
Five of the nine, 55%, Grant Thornton audits reviewed were assessed as requiring no more than limited improvements.
In the FRC’s report on its work Grant Thornton said it developed an Audit Investment Plan in Spring 2019 after recognising it was not consistently achieving the high level of audit quality it expected.
The firm said it had recognised the changes it was making would not be evident in the 2020 report, due to the time lag between audits being performed and them being reviewed.
In the study it completed last year the FRC found a quarter of audits were below the acceptable standard.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel