Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

Britain to shake up how companies are run and audited

Published 03/17/2021, 08:06 PM
Updated 03/18/2021, 05:05 AM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Senate Banking Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington

By Huw Jones

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain proposed weakening the market grip of "Big Four" auditors on Thursday and making company directors responsible for spotting fraud after the collapses of retailer BHS and builder Carillion.

Directors would have to repay bonuses if their company went bust or serious failings came to light, and dividends and bonuses would have to be stopped if firms didn't have enough cash - a lesson from the Carillion collapse.

The long-awaited proposals, put out to a four-month public consultation, implement the bulk of recommendations made in three government-backed reports on audit market competition, regulation and corporate governance.

"It's clear from large-scale collapses like Thomas Cook, Carillion and BHS that Britain's audit regime needs to be modernised with a package of sensible, proportionate reforms," business minister Kwasi Kwarteng said in a statement.

Some of the proposals are already being introduced in voluntary form, such as operational separation of audit and more lucrative consultancy work at PwC, Deloitte, KPMG and EY - the "Big Four" firms that dominate auditing of blue-chip UK companies.

The Financial Reporting Council, criticised by lawmakers for being too timid in regulating auditors, is already undergoing an internal transformation to become the more powerful Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority or ARGA, proposed on Thursday.

The government proposed that smaller audit firms undertake a meaningful portion of a big company audit, stopping short of the joint audit initially recommended by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

This would help "challengers" like Mazars, Grant Thornton and BDO build up expertise to fully take on the Big Four later on. If this competition strategy fails, the Big Four face caps on market share, the government said.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Mazars said targets of at least 20% of total audit fees at challenger auditors for FTSE-350 companies after five years of reform should be set.

COLLECTIVE VS INDIVIDUAL

New reporting obligations would be introduced on both auditors and directors around detecting and preventing fraud.

Company boards would be required to set out what controls they have in place in a British version of the stringent U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley anti-fraud safeguards introduced after energy giant Enron collapsed.

ARGA would have powers to investigate and punish all company directors.

The Institute of Directors said it was appropriate to consider how accountability of directors could be improved, but the collective responsibility of a board should remain the central feature of UK corporate governance.

Accounting experts say such increased responsibilities on directors would mean individuals taking on fewer directorships.

After the consultation ends in July, the government said it would propose legislation when "parliamentary time allows".

"We urge ministers to get on with implementation as quickly as possible, with the establishment of the new regulator as the top priority," said Michael Izza, CEO of the ICAEW, a professional accounting body.

Latest comments

In developing structures and operational dynamics, it is important to take into account the ability of business united to genuinely identify interdependencies veteen organisaationa on non-EU Britain and clearly within the EU, such as intangible capital. At the heart of the debate are, among the other things, asset protection and, at the same time, creditor protection, starting with the development aspects of businesses in the ability of exited management units to influence through new 'innovations'. The heath priority that always serves everyone should be emphasized at the forefront of the activities of both British and EU-led organizations to serve genuine ownership, as the realisation of asset protection in the new situation is questionable and unclear on teema of realisation of intangible capital. Hopefully, for example, a fitness center will displace a pub and get people healthy water?
* Maybe I need a bigger keys for phone:)
Better than a cap on market share would be to limit the consecutive terms to hold office as statutory / external auditors to a not more than 5 years in a row, that is, 4 reappointments after their initial appointment for 1 year each. This will prevent potential cosy relationship which could compromise professionalism and thus fraud detection. Some of the corporate giants in the US have had the same (part of the BIG FOUR) auditors for the last 50 years or even longer. All this must stop. What is the Competition Bureau / Anti-Trust Regulator doing???
I'd agree with this opinion. It seems from my experience to be the case. This cozy relationship seems to be evident even in some non profits and I never expected to see ways in which such an institution could be abused within its governance. So obviously a human weakness that is  magnified with resources and time. Absolute power, absolutely corrupts.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.