Audits used to be true

About 50 years ago when I studied auditing one of the primary functions was to ensure the books were correct, true and fair. This was because those who appointed the auditors, the shareholders, did so in the expectation that the business was being properly managed and its assets were not being squandered or stolen.

Deloitte’s Andrew Mackie went to great lengths to explain that fraud detection is no longer the primary objective of an audit — a separate forensic audit is required (Bridge expectation gap with a new consensus on audits, July 18). But there is clearly a gap between the expectations of those who employ auditors, and the auditors themselves. If I knew what I now hear about Steinhoff and its auditors I would not have bought their shares, instead of relying on the audits.

Mackie calls for an independent review to assess the needs of 21st century society. This sounds like another smokescreen. Those who rely on audits need to be reviewing their expectations. We have been misled for too long by a profession looking to make a quick buck. Auditing firms have for years tried to find the easiest audit route and alternate sources of income such as consulting.

Auditors should be considering the needs of their customers and finding ways to meet them.

Henry Watermeyer

Lyndhurst