RSS feedsTo their credit, a couple of institutions take an active role in audit debates – Morley and Hermes spring to mind.
Standard Life also responded to the consultation but, otherwise, responses were coordinated through the ABI, the NAPF, the IMA and the London Investment Banking Association.
That, you could say, covers a lot of the investment banking community. But it seems bizarre that there isn’t more diversity of views and more responses.
What does Fidelity think of audit choice? What about UBS? And Barclays Global Investors, or Gartmore, or Scottish Widows?
They are all big investment houses. All of them probably have governance experts.
How are they making their views known?
Leaving aside the suggestion that the City prefers to do things behind closed doors, the fact that so few replied poses an interesting question.
Just how concerned is the investment community about audits? Most investors don’t offer very vocal criticisms. It lends weight to PwC’s argument that the whole debate is misconceived, and that there is no problem.
The question also calls to mind the Sanctuary debacle earlier this year, when big investors waved through the sacking of Baker Tilly. The firm’s auditing was spot on but it had irritated management by qualifying the accounts.
Do investors really care about audits?
Arguments motivated by self-interest, from the big firms and the challenger firms, currently dominate the audit debate. But if we’re to come to any conclusions about what to do, then the ultimate users of accounts, the investors, have to make their feelings plain.
Alex Hawkes is news editor of Accountancy Age
