SEC Concerned with Changes in the Public Accounting Profession
The SEC and the former Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. were extremely concerned that the public accounting firms were violating the auditors independence rules addressed through the Securities Exchange Acts. Auditing firms now had dual citizenship in public companies: (1) they issued opinions on audited financial statements and (2) they participated in various consulting engagements for those same companies. Levitt's solution was to split auditing and consulting. The former Chairman was concerned that the public would lose confidence in the financial markets …… and the whole system would be jeopardized.
Public Accounting Revenues vs. Consulting Revenues by 1999
By 1976, audit fees accounted for approximately 70% of total revenue earned by any accounting firm in general. According to the Public Accounting Report, an Atlanta newsletter, the auditing and assurance services revenues dropped to 30% and tax services business accounted for 19% of the total revenues earned in 1999. Mathematically speaking, this means management consulting services accounted for approximately 51% of the total revenue being earned in 1999 by public accounting firms.
Fact: According to The Business Journal's Book of Lists, PwC had $75 million in South Florida billings in 1998 to place third among accounting firms.
SEC Auditors’ Independence Rule
The independence rules require that auditors refrain from investing in companies that they audit, to ensure objective, truthful reporting and opinion. The rule applies to all auditors, their relatives, spouses, dependents, non-dependents, and, in some cases, associates must disclose all holdings.
On the September 25, 2002 issue of BusinessWeekOnline.com, the Accounting Wars Powerful auditor-consultants are the target of Arthur Levitt’s crusade articles defined “Independence to mean, CPAs cannot audit their own or their partners' work….…..clear and honest information is dependent on the CPAs independence……an auditor must not have any financial stake in the health, or even survival, of a client company.”
There are those in the profession that believe this rule is archaic and does not hold any value in today’s financial world. Barry Melancon, President and CEO of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants stated, “The SEC has a right to expect the profession to adhere to the rules; however, the profession has a right to expect the regulatory environment to remain modern.”
Fact: In 1933, when Congress first required public financial reports, lawmakers debated whether audit fees would taint auditors' independence.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP is a public accounting firm formed through a merger between Coopers & Lybrand LLP and Price Waterhouse LLP, which was consummated on or about July 1, 1998.
With every business activity come opportunities for fraudulent behavior which leads to a greater demand for auditors with unscathed ethics. Nowadays, auditors are faced with a multitude of ethical issues, and it is even more problematic when the auditors fail to adhere to the standards of professional conducts as prescribed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The objective of this paper is to analyze the auditors’ compliance with the code of professional conduct in the way it relates to the effectiveness of their audits.
The audit committee must certify that the company’s auditors are independent. The audit committee must approve all professional services provided to the company by its independent auditors and ensure that auditors do not provide to the company any of the specifically prohibited services identified by SOX, such as bookkeeping services. The audit committee must receive and analyze key items of information from the independent auditors. These items of information include auditors’ analysis of critical accounting policies adopted by the
Consult PCAOB Ethics and Independence Rule 3520. What is the auditor independence, and what is its significance to the audit profession? What is the difference between independence in appearance and independence in fact?
Consistent accounting and financial frauds in the U.S. alerted the SEC to the imperative need for policy and corporate governance changes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 was enacted to encourage financial disclosures, enhance corporate responsibility, and combat fraudulent behaviour. This Act also helped create the PCAOB, which oversees the auditing practice (Stanwick & Stanwick 2009).
Sarbanes-Oxley contains eleven titles and covers a wide range of topics from the implementation of new compliance requirements to the criminal penalties of any violations of the rulings. One very important aspect touched upon in Sarbanes-Oxley is auditor independence. Auditor independence and the part an auditor plays in corporate financial reporting in the wake of all the corporate scandals have become extremely important. It has become increasingly important in the training and professional ethics of an auditor. The objective of auditor independence is to have the auditor “be unbiased and impartial with respect to the financial statements and other information they audit”0. There are three aspects of practical auditor independence, programming independence, investigative independence and reporting independence.
According to section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act, all the members of the audit committee will be members of the board of directors of the public company and be required to be otherwise independent (AICPA, 2004). In addition to this, Keinath and Walo (2004) state that one member of this committee will need to be an expert in the field of financial management. These requirements are likely to introduce changes in the composition of the audit committees of some public companies. According to a survey conducted by Keinath and Walo, 10% of companies did not have at least one member with expertise in financial management in their audit committees meaning they would have to alter the composition in order to ensure compliance to the Act. In addition to this, some companies made exceptions when it came to ensuring that members of the audit committees were independent (Keinath a...
Proverbs 10:9 states: “People with integrity walk safely, but those who follow crooked paths will slip and fall” (New Living Translation).” This Scripture suggests that individuals who do not walk in integrity follow “crooked paths.” They walk in ways that are not morally sound, pure, and honest—but in ways that are corrupt. Clients want accountants with integrity. Thus, integrity is critical to the public trust. As a matter of fact, one of the general definitions of integrity provided by the AICPA Code is that it is a quality from which the public trust derives. Also, it is an element of character fundamental to professional recognition, and it requires members to be (among other things) honest and candid within the constraints of confidentiality (Duska, Duska & Ragatz, 2011). Integrity in the accounting profession involves adhering to the rules and principles of the profession. This includes remaining free of conflicts of interest and maintaining client relationships in which the accountant can remain objective in discharging his or her responsibilities. This requires independence in fact and in appearance as mandated under section 1.200.001.01, Independence Rule the AICPA Code. In other words, no one should be able to view the accountant as being biased with respect to a client’s financial reporting due to an improper client relationship. Lack of integrity in accounting practices has been, and continues to be, a key element in the downfall of many institutions which has hurt the public trust in the accounting
The audit committee should respect the independent opinions from external auditors. Also, there should be certain amount of CPA in the Audit Committee of the Board.
Throughout the years, the news covered stories of corporate scandals involving accounting unethical practices. These unethical corporate acts had a tremendous negative impact on these company’s stockholders, investors, employees and the whole U.S. economy. Most of these scandals would have been prevented, if the independent audits of these companies were conducted in an ethical manner. With this in mind, two corporate scandals will be the subjects of further review to understand that an auditor might encounter ethical dilemmas, if independence and objectivity are not part of the audit process.
The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct defines independence as consisting of independence of mind and independence in appearance. According to the AICPA Code of Conduct, Section 55 Article IV, An accountant member should maintain objectivity and be free of conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. Moreover, a member who practices their accounting work in a public firm should be independent in fact and appearance when providing auditing and other attestation services (aicpa.org). According to the case study What Lies Beneath, I think that Betty did not show her professional skepticism since she built trust on her client, which she could not have as an auditor. As an auditor,
We as accountants have an ethical obligation under the AICPA Code that require us to place the public interest ahead of all other interest, including our own self-interest and that of our employer or client. We must be independent, make decisions objectively, exercise due care in the performance of professional services, and must act with integrity. The standards of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) are similar to the Professional Conduct in the AICPA Code. Furthermore, the principles of the AICPA Code include responsibilities, the public interest, integrity, objectivity and independence, due care, and scope and nature of service. The IMA provides guidance on issues relating to competence, confidentiality, integrity, and credibility. The Resolution of Ethical Conflict section in the IMA defines the steps to be taken by members, such as discussing matters of concern with the highest levels of the organization, including the audit committee when they are pressured to go along with financial statement improprieties. In addition, the IMA runs an ethics hotline service to provide support to its members to act ethically at all times.
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
PricewaterhouseCoopers has an extensive history dating back to the 1900’s when two firms, Coopers & Lybrand, united. This combination allowed PwC to become not only a UK brand, but also a USA brand as well. Before the merger, Samuel Lowell Price decided to set up an accounting firm in London, which experienced tremendous success. When Price agreed to go into a partnership with Edwin Waterhouse and William Hopkins Holyland, the revenues and prestige of the firm sky rocketed. In 1998 the firm went on to partner with Coopers & Lybrand and PwC emerged. After the merger, the company began to set up consulting facilities and ERP systems. The company expanded at a rapid rate...
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)is the world’s largest accounting firm and ranks as one of the giants in the global professional services arena. PwC employs over 146,000 people with 766 offices in 150 countries. The Firm is led by Samuel A. DiPiazza, CEO, and is headquartered in New York City on Madison Avenue. Its clients include 84 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies. Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand merged in 1998, which made the combined firm the top player in public accounting. In the 2007 fiscal year, PwC had gross revenue of over $25 billion. Structured as a limited liability partnership (LLP), the private company would rank in the low 300s on the Fortune 500 companies.
The evolution of auditing is a complicated history that has always been changing through historical events. Auditing always changed to meet the needs of the business environment of that day. Auditing has been around since the beginning of human civilization, focusing mainly, at first, on finding efraud. As the United States grew, the business world grew, and auditing began to play more important roles. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, people began to invest money into large corporations. The Stock Market crash of 1929 and various scandals made auditors realize that their roles in society were very important. Scandals and stock market crashes made auditors aware of deficiencies in auditing, and the auditing community was always quick to fix those deficiencies. The auditors’ job became more difficult as the accounting principles changed, and became easier with the use of internal controls. These controls introduced the need for testing; not an in-depth detailed audit. Auditing jobs would have to change to meet the changing business world. The invention of computers impacted the auditors’ world by making their job at times easier and at times making their job more difficult. Finally, the auditors’ job of certifying and testing companies’ financial statements is the backbone of the business world.