Bank auditors need to go above and beyond

Bank auditors say they did their job to the letter of the law. They well know they are paid to enact the spirit of it too

15 Apr 2011

By Peter Williams

Peter Williams is a chartered account and freelance journalist

According to the House of Lords, auditing in the UK is rotten. The Lords’ committee inquiry has plunged the knife deeply into the heart of the auditing profession over its response to the banking crisis. The committee is unimpressed with the response to their questions from senior partners at Deloitte, KPMG and PwC, the auditors of large British banks. It clearly thought the auditors should have spotted things going wrong in 2007 and 2008, and sounded the alarm. In particular, it believes the auditors should have been more concerned about the business models which, now with perfect hindsight, it sees were so unsustainable. Responding to the evidence the committee heard from the global firms, it said simply that it does not accept the defence that bank auditors did all that was required of them. That defence does appear disconcertingly complacent. It may be that the Big Four carried out their duties properly in the strictly legal sense, but we have to conclude that, in the wider sense, they did not.

It is not made explicit what exactly the committee thought the auditors should have done above and beyond their legal duty, though it did disagree with the auditors on their approach to, and judgement of, the going concern of the banks in question. The auditors are rebuked for taking into consideration all possible sources of funding, including that of the UK taxpayer. The committee says this should have been ignored: “It cannot, or at least should not, be taken for granted by auditors that banks in difficulties will be bailed out by the authorities and the taxpayers.” Let us leave aside the implicit idea that auditors now somehow share bankers’ moral hazard. Instead, let us remind the committee that banks in distress were shepherded into mergers or bailed out by governments across the developed world to the tune of billions. Maybe we need a more nuanced going concern report, but the auditors were spot on. The other key criticism centres on the idea that we could have accepted the existence of an audit market oligopoly in exchange for a good product. As the output of this oligopoly has been disappointing, says the committee, it should be broken up. But it is not a deal of which I was ever aware.

Time will tell what the real impact of this report will be. Remember: it is intended to be about the whole audit market, not just the bank auditors and the financial crisis. The authors have designed it to resonate down through history – why else start the report with a reference to a House of Lords report of 1849?



blog comments powered by Disqus



Latest opportunities:

Find appointments

Search by job title, salary, or location - we only list senior financial roles