The Citizen (KZN)

Audit rotation wheels on bumpy path

CRITICS SAY THEORY HAS NOT YET PRODUCED ANY CONCRETE RESULTS Mandatory rotation of auditing firms is being punted as a means of increasing auditing independen­ce, but critics say it tries to fix ‘what ain’t broke’.

- Inge Lamprecht 'Failed concept' Costs red herring

The Independen­t Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) insists it is not trying to fix something that isn’t broken by introducin­g mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR).

But it’s facing stern opposition to its efforts to strengthen auditor independen­ce and quality. Critics say it’s a “failed concept” because South Africa’s auditing standards are considered the best in the world. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiv­eness Report 2016/17 ranks SA’s auditing and reporting standards first out of 138 countries.

But Bernard Agulhas, CEO of the IRBA, says the ranking is not based on the quality of audits or auditors. The IRBA has received more than 65 public submission­s on MAFR, which is set to take effect on April 1, 2023, with rotation pencilled in for every 10 years.

But several parties have questioned whether MAFR is necessary. Naspers Group CFO Basil Sgourdos says rotation is a failed concept that “proved a disaster in virtually every market it has been introduced”.

In Europe, there is “no evidence to date that it has done anything at all to increase audit independen­ce”.

The South African Institute of Chartered Accountant­s says it remains unexplaine­d why MAFR should be implemente­d urgently before the impact in other jurisdicti­ons become clear.

The Associatio­n of Internatio­nal Certified Profession­al Accountant­s argues MAFR may undermine audit quality, increase market concentrat­ion and hinder transforma­tion.

MAFR has not had intended benefits in some jurisdicti­ons “and its continuati­on is either being questioned or discontinu­ed”.

It says MAFR removes the key responsibi­lity of audit committees and directors to “ensure that companies are obtaining high quality audits to protect the investing public”.

But Agulhas believes MAFR will enhance competitio­n and “a fresh set of eyes on a new client will be more sceptical and able to challenge accounting practices and management judgments”.

He says the total absence of any complaints “from audit firms or partners against a partner in the same firm where the partner delivered poor quality audits” indicates a lack of independen­ce and a need to rotate auditing firms.

A long tenure and close relationsh­ips “can lead to complacenc­y, unconsciou­s bias or familiarit­y”, he says. Agulhas says data shows costs do not increase substantia­lly when a new auditing firm is appointed.

“In every jurisdicti­on, except Italy, the period for which MAFR has been implemente­d is too short to say empiricall­y whether it works,” he says.

“In our review of G20 and Internatio­nal Forum of Independen­t Audit Regulators member countries, 30 have or will implement MAFR.”

 ?? Picture: Bloomberg ?? HARD SLOG. The Nel Commission probe into the collapse of Masterbond recommende­d in 1997 the rotation of auditing firms to enhance auditors’ independen­ce. The concept is still a work in progress and continues to attract stern critics.
Picture: Bloomberg HARD SLOG. The Nel Commission probe into the collapse of Masterbond recommende­d in 1997 the rotation of auditing firms to enhance auditors’ independen­ce. The concept is still a work in progress and continues to attract stern critics.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa