Draft Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, 28190-28208 [E8-10818]
Download as PDF
28190
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
and Hoosier Energy’s Merrom
Generating Station at Merrom, IN, both
located on INRD’s line.
The transaction is scheduled to be
consummated on May 30, 2008.
The purpose of the trackage rights is
to permit INRD to move loaded coal
trains and empty hopper trains in
single-line service between the Sunrise
facility and INRD’s two power plants,
thus enhancing operational efficiency.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employees affected by the acquisition of
the trackage rights will be protected by
the conditions imposed in Norfolk and
Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,
354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in
Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and
Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
This notice is filed under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the transaction. Stay
petitions must be filed by May 22, 2008
(at least 7 days before the exemption
becomes effective).
Pursuant to the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110–161, section 193, 121 Stat. 1844
(2007), nothing in this decision
authorizes the following activities at any
solid waste rail transfer facility:
Collecting, storing or transferring solid
waste outside of its original shipping
container; or separating or processing
solid waste (including baling, crushing,
compacting and shredding). The term
‘‘solid waste’’ is defined in section 1004
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42
U.S.C. 6903.
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35137, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, a copy of each
pleading must be served on John
Broadley, John H. Broadley &
Associates, P.C., 1054 31st Street, NW.,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20007.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: May 7, 2008.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Anne K. Quinlan,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–10723 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Draft Report of the Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession
Office of the Undersecretary for
Domestic Finance, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on
the Auditing Profession is publishing a
Draft Report and soliciting public
comment.
Comments should be received on
or before June 13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted to the Advisory Committee by
any of the following methods:
DATES:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Department’s Internet
submission form (https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/
comments); or
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession, Office of Financial
Institutions Policy, Room 1418,
Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department will post
all comments on its Web site (https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/comments) without
change, including any business or
personal information provided such as
names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or
telephone numbers. The Department
will also make such comments available
for public inspection and copying in the
Department’s Library, Room 1428, Main
Department Building, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can
make an appointment to inspect
comments by telephoning (202) 622–
0990. All comments, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, received are part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
You should submit only information
that you wish to make available
publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen E. Jaconi, Senior Policy Advisor
to the Under Secretary for Domestic
Finance, Department of the Treasury,
Main Department Building, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 927–
6618.
At the
request of the two Co-Chairs of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department of the Treasury’s Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession,
the Department is publishing this notice
soliciting public comment on the
Advisory Committee’s Draft Report. The
text of this Draft Report is found in the
appendix to this notice and may be
found on the Web page of the Advisory
Committee at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/
index.shtml. The appendices to the
Draft Report are not included in this
notice, but may be found on the Web
page of the Advisory Committee at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/index.shtml. The Draft
Report contains the Advisory
Committee’s developed proposals on
improving the sustainability of a strong
and vibrant public company auditing
profession. All interested parties are
invited to submit their comments in the
manner described above.
Dated: May 8, 2008.
Taiya Smith,
Executive Secretary.
Appendix: Advisory Committee on the
Auditing Profession, Draft Report—May
5, 2008, The Department of the
Treasury
Draft Report of the Advisory Committee
on the Auditing Profession to the U.S.
Department of the Treasury
Table of Contents
I. Transmittal Letter [Placeholder]
II. Executive Summary [Placeholder]
III. Committee History
IV. Background [Placeholder]
V. Human Capital
VI. Firm Structure and Finances
VII. Concentration and Competition
VIII. Separate Statements [Placeholder]
IX. Appendices
A. Official Notice of Establishment of
Committee
B. Committee Charter
C. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson,
Jr., Remarks at the Economic Club of
New York, New York, NY on Capital
Market Competitiveness (Nov. 20, 2006)
D. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson,
Jr., Opening Remarks at the Treasury
Department’s Capital Markets
Competitiveness Conference at
Georgetown University (Mar. 13, 2007)
E. Paulson Announces First Stage of
Capital Markets Action Plan, Treasury
Press Release No. HP–408 (May 17, 2007)
F. Paulson: Financial Reporting Vital to
U.S. Market Integrity, Strong Economy,
Treasury Press Release No. HP–407 (May
17, 2008)
G. Paulson Announces Auditing
Committee Members To Make
Recommendations for a More
Sustainable, Transparent Industry,
Treasury Press Release No. HP–585 (Oct.
2, 2007)
H. Under Secretary for Domestic Finance
Robert K. Steel, Welcome and
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
Introductory Remarks Before the Initial
Meeting of the Department of the
Treasury’s Advisory Committee on the
Auditing Profession, Treasury Press
Release No. HP–610 (Oct. 15, 2007)
I. Committee By-Laws
J. List of Witnesses
K. List of Committee Members, Observers,
and Staff
L. Working Discussion Outline
M. Working Bibliography
I. Transmittal Letter
Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession
[July 2008].
The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Dear Secretary Paulson: On behalf of the
Department’s Advisory Committee on the
Auditing Profession, we are pleased to
submit our Final Report.
[Contents of letter to be included in Final
Report.]
Respectfully Submitted on behalf of the
Committee,
lllllllllllllllllllll
Arthur Levitt, Jr.,
Committee Co-Chair.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Donald T. Nicolaisen,
Committee Co-Chair.
Enclosure.
cc: Undersecretary for Domestic Finance
Robert K. Steel.
II. Executive Summary
[Contents of Executive Summary to be
included in subsequent drafts of this Report.]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
III. Committee History
On November 20, 2006, the Secretary of the
Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., delivered a
speech on the competitiveness of the U.S.
capital markets, highlighting the need for a
sustainable auditing profession.1 In March
2007, Secretary Paulson hosted a conference
at Georgetown University with investors,
current and former policy makers, and
market participants to discuss issues
impacting the competitiveness of the U.S.
capital markets, including the sustainability
of the auditing profession.2
On May 17, 2007, Secretary Paulson
announced the Department of the Treasury’s
(the Department) intent to establish the
Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession (the Committee) to consider and
develop recommendations relating to the
sustainability of the auditing profession.3 At
1 Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Remarks on the Competitiveness of U.S. Capital
Markets at the Economic Club of New York (Nov.
20, 2006), in Press Release No. HP–174, U.S. Dep’t
of Treas. (Nov. 20, 2006) (included as Appendix C).
2 Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Opening Remarks at Treasury’s Capital Markets
Competitiveness Conference at Georgetown
University (Mar. 13, 2007), in Press Release No. HP–
306, U.S. Dep’t of Treas. (Mar. 13, 2007) (included
as Appendix D).
3 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Paulson
Announces First Stage of Capital Markets Action
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
the same time, Secretary Paulson announced
that he had asked Arthur Levitt, Jr. and
Donald T. Nicolaisen to serve as Co-Chairs of
the Committee. The Department published
the official notice of establishment and
requested nominations for membership on
the Committee in the Federal Register on
June 18, 2007.4 Secretary Paulson announced
the Committee’s membership on October 2,
2007, with members drawn from a wide
range of professions, backgrounds and
experiences.5 The Department filed the
Committee’s Charter with the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, the Senate Committee on Finance,
the House Committee on Financial Services
and the House Committee on Ways and
Means on July 3, 2007.6
Committee Activities
The Committee held its initial meeting on
October 15, 2007 in Washington, DC.7 Under
Secretary for Domestic Finance Robert K.
Steel welcomed the Committee members and
provided introductory remarks.8 Also on
October 15, 2007, the Committee adopted its
by-laws 9 and considered a Working
Discussion Outline to be published for public
comment.10 The Working Discussion Outline
identified in general terms issues for the
Committee’s consideration. A Working
Bibliography, updated intermittently
throughout the course of the Committee’s
deliberations, provided the members with
articles, reports, studies, and other written
materials relating to the auditing
profession.11 All full Committee meetings
Plan (May 17, 2007) (included as Appendix E);
Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Paulson:
Financial Reporting Vital to U.S. Market Integrity,
Strong Economy (May 17, 2008) (included as
Appendix F).
4 Notice of Intent to Establish; Request for
Nominations, 72 FR 33560 (U.S. Dep’t of Treas.
June 18, 2007) (included as Appendix A).
5 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Treas., Paulson
Announces Auditing Committee Members to Make
Recommendations for a More Sustainable,
Transparent Industry (Oct. 2, 2007) (included as
Appendix G). This press release describes the
diverse backgrounds of the Committee members.
For a list of Members, Observers, and Staff, see
Appendix K.
6 See Committee Charter (included as Appendix
B).
7 The Record of Proceedings of this and
subsequent meetings of the Committee are available
on the Department’s Web site at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance//acap/
press.shtml. See Record of Proceedings, Meeting of
the Committee (Oct. 15, 2007, Dec. 3, 2007, Feb. 4,
2008, Mar. 13, 2008, Apr. 1, 2008, and [l])
[hereinafter Record of Proceedings (with
appropriate date)] (on file in the Department’s
Library, Room 1428), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
press.shtml.
8 Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Robert K.
Steel, Welcome and Introductory Remarks Before
the Initial Meeting of the Treasury Department’s
Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession
(Oct. 15, 2007), in Press Release No. HP–610, U.S.
Dep’t of Treas. (Oct. 15, 2007) (included as
Appendix H).
9 The Committee By-Laws are included as
Appendix I.
10 The Working Discussion Outline is included as
Appendix L.
11 The Working Bibliography is included as
Appendix M. The Working Bibliography was
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28191
were open to the public and conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.12 The
meetings of the full Committee were also
Web or audio cast over the Internet.
The Committee held its second meeting on
December 3, 2007 in Washington, DC. The
agenda for this meeting consisted of hearing
oral statements from witnesses and
considering written submissions that those
witnesses had filed with the Committee. The
oral statements and written submissions
focused on the issues impacting the
sustainability of the auditing profession,
including issues mentioned in the Working
Discussion Outline. Nineteen witnesses
testified at this meeting.13 The Committee
held a subsequent meeting on February 4,
2008 in Los Angeles, California at the
University of Southern California. The
agenda for this meeting consisted of hearing
oral statements from witnesses and
considering written submissions that those
witnesses had filed with the Committee. The
oral statements and written submissions
focused on the issues impacting the
sustainability of the auditing profession,
including issues mentioned in the Working
Discussion Outline. Seventeen witnesses
testified at this meeting.14 The Committee
held additional meetings on March 13, 2008,
April 1, 2008, and [l]. All were face-to-face
meetings held at the Department in
Washington, DC, except for February 4, 2008,
which was held in Los Angeles, California,
and the meetings on April 1, 2008, and [l],
which were telephonic meetings.
The Committee, through the Department,
published [l] releases in the Federal
Register formally seeking public comment on
issues under consideration. On October 31,
2007, the Committee published a release
seeking comment on the Working Discussion
Outline,15 in response to which we received
seventeen written submissions. In addition,
the Department announced each meeting of
the Committee in the Federal Register, and
in each announcement notice included an
invitation to submit written statements to be
considered in connection with the meeting.16
In response to these meeting notices, the
Committee received [l] written submissions.
In total, the Committee received [l] written
submissions in response to Federal Register
releases.17 All of the submissions made to the
subsequently updated in December 2007 and
February 2008.
12 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 1.
13 Appendix J contains a list of witnesses who
testified before the Committee.
14 Appendix J contains a list of witnesses who
testified before the Committee.
15 Request for Comments, 72 FR 61709 (U.S. Dep’t
of Treas. Oct. 31, 2007).
16 Notice of Meeting, 72 FR 55272 (U.S. Dep’t of
Treas. Sept. 28, 2007); Notice of Meeting, 72 FR
64283 (U.S. Dep’t of Treas. Nov. 15, 2007); Notice
of Meeting, 73 FR 2981 (U.S. Dep’t of Treas. Jan.
16, 2008); Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 10511 (U.S.
Dep’t of Treas. Feb. 27, 2008); Notice of Meeting,
73 FR 13070 (U.S. Dep’t of Treas. Mar. 11, 2008);
Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 21016 (U.S. Dep’t of Treas.
Apr. 17, 2008).
17 All of the written submissions made to the
Committee are available in the Department’s
Library, Room 1428 and on the Department’s
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
Continued
15MYN1
28192
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
Committee will be archived and available to
the public through the Department’s Library.
In addition to work carried out by the full
Committee, fact finding and deliberations
also took place within three Subcommittees
appointed by the Co-Chairs. The
Subcommittees were organized according to
their principal areas of focus: Human Capital,
Firm Structure and Finances, and
Concentration and Competition.18 Each of
the Subcommittees prepared
recommendations for consideration by the
full Committee.
IV. Background
[Contents of Background to be included in
subsequent drafts of this Report.]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
V. Human Capital
The Committee devoted considerable time
and effort surveying the human capital issues
impacting the auditing profession, including
education, licensing, recruitment, retention,
and training of accounting and auditing
professionals. The charter of the Committee
charged its members with developing
recommendations relating to the
sustainability of the public company auditing
profession. Likewise, the Committee directs
the following recommendations and related
commentary to those practicing public
company auditing. However, the Committee
recognizes that several of its
recommendations regarding human capital
matters would have impact beyond the
public company auditing profession,
impacting the accounting profession as a
whole. The Committee views the accelerating
pace of change in the global corporate
environment and capital markets and the
increasing complexity of business
transactions and financial reporting as among
the most significant challenges facing the
profession as well as financial statement
issuers and investors. These are directly
impacted by human capital issues. To ensure
its viability and resilience and its ability to
meet the needs of investors, the public
company auditing profession needs to
continue to attract and develop professionals
at all levels who are prepared to perform high
quality audits in this dynamic environment.
It is essential that these professionals be
educated and trained to review, judge, and
question all accounting and auditing matters
with skepticism and a critical perspective.
The recommendations presented below
reflect these needs.
After receiving testimony from witnesses
and from comment letters, the Committee
identified specific areas where the
Committee believed it could develop
recommendations to be implemented in the
relatively short term to enhance the
sustainability of the auditing profession.
These specific areas include accounting
curricula, accounting faculty, minority
representation and retention, and
Committee’s Web page at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/press.shtml. To
avoid duplicative material in footnotes, citations to
the written submissions made to the Committee in
this Final Report do not reference the Department’s
Library, Room 1428.
18 For a list of members and their Subcommittee
assignments, see Appendix K.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
development and maintenance of human
capital data. The Committee has also
developed a recommendation to study the
possible future of higher accounting
education’s institutional structure.
The Committee recommends that
regulators, the auditing profession, educators,
educational institutions, accrediting
agencies, and other bodies, as applicable,
effectuate the following:
Recommendation 1. Implement marketdriven, dynamic curricula and content for
accounting students that continuously evolve
to meet the needs of the auditing profession
and help prepare new entrants to the
profession to perform high quality audits.
The Committee considered the views of all
witnesses who provided input regarding
accounting curricula at educational
institutions.19 The Committee believes that
the accounting curricula in higher education
are critical to ensuring individuals have the
necessary knowledge, mindset, skills, and
abilities to perform quality public company
audits. In order to graduate from an
educational institution with an accounting
degree, students must have completed a
certain number of hours in accounting and
business courses. Accounting curricula
typically include courses in auditing,
financial accounting, cost accounting and
U.S. federal income taxation. Business
curricula typically include courses in ethics,
information systems and controls, finance,
economics, management, marketing, oral and
written communication, statistics, and U.S.
business law.20 Since the 1950s, several
19 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Joseph V. Carcello, Director
of Research, Corporate Governance, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, 8), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Carcello120307.pdf (noting
the market’s expectations that university accounting
curricula will expose students to recent financial
reporting developments, such as international
financial reporting standards and eXtensible
Business Reporting Language); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director, Center for
Audit Quality, 3) available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf (stating the need to
‘‘[d]edicate funds and people to work with
accounting professors to ensure that the curriculum
is keeping pace with developments in business
transactions, international economics and financial
reporting’’ and specifying the need to focus on
ethical standards and international accounting and
auditing standards); Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3,
2007) (Written Submission of Dennis Nally,
Chairman and Senior Partner,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 4), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Nally120307.pdf
(stating the need to ‘‘[m]odernize and enhance the
university accounting curriculum, which should
include consideration of other global curriculum
models to increase knowledge of International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), finance and
economics, and process controls’’).
20 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of
Accountancy, Arizona State University, 13),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (commenting that business
students typically take two sophomore-level
introductory accounting classes and accounting
majors take six additional accounting courses in
their final two years of schooling).
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
private sector groups have studied and
recommended changes to the accounting
curricula,21 but notwithstanding these pleas
for reform, curricula are characteristically
slow to change.22
In this regard, the Committee makes the
following recommendations:
(a) Regularly update the accounting
certification examinations to reflect changes
in the accounting profession, its relevant
professional and ethical standards, and the
skills and knowledge required to serve
increasingly global capital markets.
Accounting and auditing professionals
commonly complete the requirements of
professional examinations in order to comply
with legal or professional association
requirements. To become licensed at the state
level as a certified public accountant, an
individual must, among other things, pass
the Uniform CPA Examination. Professional
examinations, such as the Uniform CPA
21 See e.g., Franklin Pierson, et al., The Education
of American Businessmen (1959) (noting that the
main goal of a business education should be the
development of an individual with broad training
in both the humanities and principles of business);
Robert A. Gordon and James E. Howell, Higher
Education for Business (1959) (suggesting that
accounting curriculum abandon its emphasis on
financial accounting and auditing while
emphasizing humanities); Robert H. Roy and James
H. MacNeill, Horizons for a Profession (1967)
(emphasizing the importance of a humanities
background for accountants and recommending
accounting graduate study); American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, Committee on
Education and Experience Requirements for CPAs,
Report of the Committee on Education and
Experience Requirements for CPAs (1969)
(recommending a five-year education requirement
for accounting students); American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, Education
Requirements for Entry into the Accounting
Profession: A Statement of AICPA Policies (1978)
(recommending a change from five years to 150
semester-hours and recommending that a graduate
degree requirement at the conclusion of the 150hours should be explicitly stated); American
Accounting Association, Committee on the Future
Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting
Education, Future Accounting Education: Preparing
for the Expanding Profession, Issues in Accounting
Education (Spring 1986) (examining accounting
education and accounting practice since 1925 and
concluding that since 1925, the profession has
changed while accounting education has not
changed); American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, Education Requirements for Entry
into the Accounting Profession: A Statement of
AICPA Policies, Second Edition, Revised (1988)
(requiring that at least 150 semester hours are
needed to obtain a CPA license); Perspectives on
Education: Capabilities for Success in the
Accounting Profession (1989) (noting that graduates
entering public accounting need to have greater
interpersonal, communication, and thinking skills
as well as greater business knowledge); and
Accounting Education Change Commission,
Objectives of Education for Accountants: Position
Statement Number One, Issues in Accounting
Education (Fall 1990a) (awarding grants to schools
as a catalyst for curricula changes in accounting
programs).
22 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans
Distinguished Professor, and Head, Department of
Accountancy, University of Illinois, 14–15),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Solomon120307.pdf (lamenting the slow pace of
change in accounting curricula and education).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Examination, influence the content of the
technical, ethical, and professional materials
comprising the accounting curricula.23
The Committee believes that evolution of
professional examination content serves as
an important catalyst for curricular changes
to reflect the dynamism and complexity of
auditing public companies in global capital
markets. The American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants (AICPA) already
regularly analyzes and updates its
examination content, through practice
content analysis and in conjunction with the
AICPA Board of Examiners, which comprises
members from the profession and state
boards of accountancy. The Committee
recommends that such changes remain a
focus to ensure that examination content
reflects in a timely manner important
ongoing market developments and investor
needs, such as the increasing use of
international financial reporting standards
(IFRS), expanded fair value measurement and
reporting, increasingly complex transactions,
new Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (PCAOB) auditing and professional
standards,24 risk-based business judgment,
and technological innovations in financial
reporting.
Moreover, the Committee believes that
professional 25 and ethical standards 26 and
subject matter relating to their application are
an essential component of the accounting
curricula and accordingly should be reflected
in the professional examinations and
throughout business and accounting
coursework.
Finally, the Committee recommends that
the market developments outlined in this
section be reflected in professional
examination content as soon as practicable,
but not later than 2011. In addition, the
Committee recommends that new evolving
examination content be widely and promptly
communicated to college and university
faculty and administrators so that
corresponding curricular changes in
educational institutions can continually
occur on a timely basis.
(b) Reflect real world changes in the
business environment more rapidly in
teaching materials.
Students are expected to use a variety of
sources, such as textbooks and online
materials, to learn. Such materials are an
important element of higher education. The
Committee learned that these commercial
materials are generally conservatively
managed and follow rather than lead recent
23 Gary Sundem, The Accounting Education
Change Commission: Its History and Impact
Chapter 6 (1999), available at https://aaahq.org/
AECC/history/index.htm (‘‘[T]he CPA examination
has certainly had a major influence on the
accounting curriculum and on other aspects of
accounting programs.’’).
24 See e.g., An Audit of Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting That Is Integrated with An
Audit of Financial Statements, Auditing Standard
No. 5 (Pub. Company Accounting Oversight Bd.
2007).
25 See PCAOB Standards and Related Rules,
available at https://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/
Standards_and_Related_Rules/index.aspx.
26 See PCAOB Interim Ethics Standards, availabe
at https://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/
Interim_Standards/Ethics/index.aspx.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
market developments.27 Because developing
accounting materials involves a significant
investment of time and resources,
commercial content providers carefully
consider the potential risks and rewards
before publishing new materials, even where
a more prompt response to new
developments might be beneficial to
students.
The Committee believes that accounting
educational materials can contribute to
inducing curricular changes that reflect the
dynamism and complexity of the global
capital markets and that commercial content
providers should recognize the importance of
capturing recent developments in their
published materials. Specifically, the
Committee recommends that organizations,
such as the AICPA and the American
Accounting Association (AAA), meet with
commercial content providers and encourage
them to update their materials promptly to
reflect recent developments such as the
increasing use of IFRS, new PCAOB auditing
and professional standards, risk-based
business judgment and expanded fair value
reporting, as well as technological
developments in financial reporting and
auditing such as eXtensible Business
Reporting Language (XBRL).
Further, in order to ensure access to such
materials, the Committee recommends that
authoritative bodies and agencies should be
encouraged to provide low-cost, affordable
access to digitized searchable authoritative
literature and materials, such as Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
codification and eIFRS, to students and
faculty members. Moreover, since the content
of professional examinations, such as the
Uniform CPA Examination, is based upon
research using digitized materials, students
need to have access to, among other things,
searchable accounting standards.28 The
Committee believes that low-cost affordable
access to such primary materials would thus
enhance student learning and performance
and technical research.
(c) Require that schools build into
accounting curricula current market
developments.
A common theme of our first set of
recommendations is that accounting
curricula should reflect recent developments,
including globalization and evolving market
factors. As a further catalyst to curricula
development and evolution by educational
institutions, the Committee recommends
ongoing attention to responsiveness to recent
developments by the bodies that accredit
educational institutions. Accrediting
agencies review institutions of higher
27 Subcommittee on Human Capital Record of
Proceedings (Jan. 16, 2008) (Oral Remarks of Bruce
K. Behn, President, Federation of Schools of
Accountancy, and Ergen Professor of Business,
Department of Accounting and Information
Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville).
28 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers,
Professor of Accountancy, Arizona State University,
14), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (affirming the need for student
access to digitized searchable accounting and
auditing materials).
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28193
education and their programs and establish
that overall resources and strategies are
conformed to the mission of the institutions.
For example, the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and
the Association of Collegiate Business
Schools and Programs (ACBSP) accredit
business administration and accounting
programs. Since 1919, the AACSB has
accredited business administration programs
and, since 1980, accounting programs
offering undergraduate and graduate degrees.
The AACSB has accredited over 450 U.S.
business programs and over 150 U.S.
accounting programs. Since 1988, the ACBSP
has accredited business programs offering
associate, baccalaureate and graduate
degrees. As of February 2008, over 400
educational institutions have achieved
ACBSP accreditation. The accreditation
standards at both accrediting agencies relate
to, among other things, curricula, program
and faculty resources, and faculty
development.
The Committee believes that the
accreditation process and appropriate
accreditation standards can contribute to
curricular changes. In particular,
accreditation standards that embody
curricular requirements to reflect the
dynamism and complexity of the global
capital markets and that evolve to keep pace
in the future can be helpful in maintaining
and advancing the quality of accounting
curricula. The AACSB has emphasized in its
accreditation standards that accounting
curricula should reflect recent market
developments. For example, educational
institutions must include in their curricula
international accounting issues in order to
receive AACSB accreditation. The Committee
supports the accrediting agencies’ efforts to
continually develop standards specifically
emphasizing the need to update accounting
programs.
Recommendation 2. Improve the
representation and retention of minorities in
the auditing profession so as to enrich the
pool of human capital in the profession.
The auditing profession presents
challenging and rewarding opportunities for
those who pursue a career in auditing and
the profession actively recruits talent from all
backgrounds. Yet, the Committee was
concerned by what it heard from individuals
with various backgrounds about minority
representation and retention in the auditing
profession.29 In 2004, minorities accounted
for 23% of bachelor’s degrees awarded in
accounting, 21% of master’s graduate degrees
awarded in accounting, and 38% of doctoral
29 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans
Distinguished Professor, and Head, Department of
Accountancy, University of Illinois, 13), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Solomon120307.pdf;
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for
the Record of George S. Willie, Managing Partner,
Bert Smith & Co., 2 (Jan. 30, 2008)), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Willie120307.pdf;
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Julie K. Wood, Chief People Officer,
Crowe Chizek and Company LLC, 2) available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Wood120307.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28194
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
degrees awarded in accounting-related
studies.30 In 2004, African Americans
represented 1% of all CPAs, Hispanic/Latino,
3%, and Asian/Pacific Islander, 4%.31
African Americans accounted for 5.4% of
new hires in 2007 in the largest six
accounting firms, Hispanics, 4.6%, and
Asians, 21.3%.32 In 2007, 1.0% of the
partners in the six largest accounting firms
were African American, 1.6% were Hispanic/
Latino, 3.4% were Asian, and less than 1.0%
were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or
American Indian/Alaska Native, aggregating
less than 7% of the total partners.33
The Committee recognizes that important
groups within the minority population are
significantly under-represented in the
accounting and auditing profession,
especially at senior levels, and this underrepresentation of minorities in the profession
is unacceptable from both a societal and
business perspective. As the demographics of
the global economy continue to expand
ethnic diversity, it is imperative that the
profession also reflect these changes. The
auditing profession’s historic role in
performing audits in an increasingly diverse
global setting and in establishing investor
trust cannot be maintained unless the
profession itself is viewed as open and
representative. To ensure the continued
health and vibrancy of the profession, it is
imperative that all participants in the
financial, investor, educator, and auditor
community adopt and implement policies,
programs, practices, and curricula designed
to attract and retain minorities. In order for
minority participation in the accounting and
auditing profession to grow and sustain itself,
minority recruitment and retention needs to
be a multi-faceted, multi-year effort,
implemented and championed by
community leaders, families, and most
importantly business and academic leaders
who educate, recruit, employ, and rely on
accountants and auditors.
In this regard, the Committee recognizes
the importance of setting goals and
measuring progress against these goals and
thus makes the following recommendations:
(a) Recruit minorities into the auditing
profession from other disciplines and careers.
The Committee heard from witnesses that
the auditing profession has ‘‘fallen short’’ on
30 Beatrice Sanders, and Leticia B. Romeo, The
Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand
for Public Accounting Recruits—2005: For
Academic Year 2003–2004 10 (2005), available at
https://ceae.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/11715FC6F0A7-4AD6-8D28-6285CBE77315/0/
Supply_DemandReport_2005.pdf.
31 Beatrice Sanders, and Leticia B. Romeo, The
Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand
for Public Accounting Recruits—2005: For
Academic Year 2003–2004 1 (2005), available at
https://ceae.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/11715FC6F0A7-4AD6-8D28-6285CBE77315/0/
Supply_DemandReport_2005.pdf.
32 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession 59 (Jan. 23, 2008).
33 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession 60 (Jan. 23, 2008).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
its minority recruitment goals.34
Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that auditing firms actively market to and
recruit from minority non-accounting
graduate populations, both at the entry and
experienced hire level, utilizing cooperative
efforts by academics and firm-based training
programs to assist in this process. Generally,
auditing firms hire individuals for the audit
practice who are qualified to sit for the
Uniform CPA Examination.35
Further, the Committee recommends that
auditing firms expand their recruitment
initiatives at historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs), and explore the use of
proprietary schools as another way to recruit
minorities into the profession. Currently over
100 educational institutions established
before 1964 to serve the African American
community are designated as HBCUs and
over fifty of these HBCUs maintain
accounting programs. Approximately 290,000
students are enrolled in HBCUs 36 and
HBCUs enroll 14% of all African American
students in higher education.37 Twentyseven HBCUs have one or more of the six
largest accounting firms recruiting
professional staff on their campus.38 Both the
number of these schools visited by the largest
firms and the number of firms recruiting at
these schools should increase. Proprietary
schools are for-profit businesses that teach
vocational or occupational skills and there
are over 2,000 proprietary schools in the
United States.39 In 2005, these schools
enrolled over 1 million students: African
Americans accounted for 23% of these
students, Hispanics, 13%, and Asian/Pacific
Islander, 4%.40
(b) Emphasize the role of community
colleges in the recruitment of minorities into
the auditing profession.
34 See e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Julie K. Wood, Chief People
Officer, Crowe Chizek and Company LLC, 2),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Wood120307.pdf (admitting an auditing firm had
not met its goals in minority recruitment).
35 See Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of James S. Turley,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ernst &
Young LLP, 4 (Feb. 1, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
QFRs-12-3-07.pdf (noting that since 1997, Ernst &
Young LLP has typically hired individuals qualified
to sit for the Uniform CPA Examination).
36 Stephen Provasnik and Linda L. Shafer,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 1976
to 2001 2 (NCES 2004–062), available at https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004062.pdf.
37 White House Initiative on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, available at https://
www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/whhbcu/edliteindex.html.
38 Center For Audit Quality, Supplement to
Report of the Major Public Company Audit Firms
to the Department of the Treasury Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession 1 (Mar. 5,
2008).
39 Thomas D. Snyder, Sally A. Dillow, and
Charlene M. Hoffman, Digest of Education Statistics
2007 Table 5 (NCES 2008–022), available at https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf.
40 Thomas D. Snyder, Sally A. Dillow, and
Charlene M. Hoffman, Digest of Education Statistics
2007 Table 220 (NCES 2008–022), available at
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Community colleges are a vital part of the
postsecondary education system. They
provide open access to post-secondary
education, preparing students for transfer to
four-year institutions, providing workforce
development and skills training, and offering
non-credit programs. Moreover, as the cost of
higher education continues its upward climb,
more and more high-achieving students are
beginning their post-secondary study through
the community college system.
As of January 2008, approximately 11.5
million students were enrolled in the 1,200
community colleges in the United States:
African Americans accounted for 13% of
these students, Hispanics, 15%, and Asian/
Pacific Islander, 6%.41
In August 1992, the Accounting Education
Change Commission (AECC), created in the
late 1980s by the academic community to
examine potential changes to accounting
education, recognized the importance of twoyear colleges in accounting education. The
AECC noted that over half of all students
taking their first course in accounting do so
at two-year colleges and that approximately
one-fourth of the students entering the
accounting profession take their initial
accounting coursework at two-year colleges.
The AECC called for ‘‘greater recognition
within the academic and professional
communities of the efforts and importance of
two-year accounting programs.’’ 42
The Committee also heard from witnesses
emphasizing the need to expand minority
recruitment initiatives at community
colleges.43
The Committee believes that more
attention to community colleges may
provide, in addition to an increase in the
overall supply of students, another avenue
for minorities to become familiar with and
attracted to the auditing profession. Currently
none of the largest auditing firms recruit at
community colleges because ‘‘individuals
who only have associate degrees typically
will not have sufficient qualifications to
satisfy state licensing requirements.’’ 44 The
Committee recommends that accreditation of
two-year college accounting programs at
41 American Association of Community Colleges,
available at https://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/
index.htm.
42 Accounting Education Change Commission,
Issues Statement Number 3: The Importance of
Two-Year Colleges for Accounting Education (Aug.
1992) available at https://aaahq.org/aecc/
PositionsandIssues/issues3.htm.
43 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Gilbert R. Vasquez, Managing
Partner, Vasquez & Company LLP, 4), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Vasquez02042008.pdf
(noting that auditing firms overlook community
colleges where minorities, and specifically Latinos,
represent a large student population); Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for the
Record of George S. Willie, Managing Partner, Bert
Smith & Co., 2 (Jan. 30, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
QFRs-12-3-07.pdf (recommending that the auditing
profession increase it visibility at community
colleges).
44 Center For Audit Quality, Supplement to
Report of the Major Public Company Audit Firms
to the Department of the Treasury Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession 1 (Mar. 5,
2008).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
community colleges be explored and
implemented when viable, so that these
programs can be relied upon as one of the
requisite steps toward fulfilling
undergraduate educational requirements.
Further, the Committee recommends that
auditing firms and educational institutions at
all levels support and cooperate in building
strong fundamental academic accounting
programs at community colleges, including
providing internships or financial support for
students who begin their studies in two-year
programs and may be seeking careers in the
auditing profession. The Committee also
recommends that auditing firms and fouryear colleges and universities and their
faculty focus on outreach to community
college students in order to support students’
transition from community colleges to fouryear educational institutions.
(c) Emphasize the utility and effectiveness
of cross-sabbaticals and internships with
faculty and students at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.
As discussed above, African Americans are
significantly under-represented in the
auditing profession.
The Committee recommends encouraging a
concerted effort to increase the focus upon
HBCUs in order to raise the number of
African Americans in the auditing profession
and urging the HBCUs, auditing firms,
corporations, federal and state governments,
and other entities to emphasize the use of
cross-sabbaticals. Cross-sabbaticals are
interactive relationships where faculty and
seasoned professionals are regularly
represented in the practice and academic
environments through exchanges. Evidence
suggests that such exchanges can be
beneficial, and continued development of
such exchanges is expected to provide
substantial benefits for all parties.45 Crosssabbaticals present an opportunity for
‘‘reflective thinking’’ for seasoned
professionals.46
In addition, the Committee recommends
that the over fifty HBCUs with accounting
45 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive
Director, Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf
(recommending encouraging sabbaticals,
internships, and fellowship opportunities,
structured to give faculty opportunities to conduct
research for promotion and tenure); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral Remarks of Phillip
M.J. Reckers, Professor of Accountancy, Arizona
State University, 68), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/minutes-2-4-08.pdf (stating that sabbaticals
deliver professors ‘‘a wealth of knowledge they
could bring back in the classroom’’).
46 See Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of H. Rodgin Cohen, Chairman, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, 69), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/minutes-03-13-08.pdf (noting that
spending time in the classroom should ‘‘give the
[practicing accountant] the time to do the reflective
thinking.’’); Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008)
(Oral Remarks of Zoe-Vonna Palmrose, Deputy
Chief Accountant, SEC), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/minutes-03-13-08.pdf (commenting that
sabbaticals provide the ‘‘opportunity for reflective
thinking’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
programs require one member of their
accounting faculty annually to participate in
a cross-sabbatical with a private or public
sector entity. The Committee also
recommends that the private and public
sector entities provide these opportunities, as
well as focus on other arrangements to build
relationships at these educational
institutions.
The Committee received testimony
regarding the lack of minority mentors and
role models 47 and notes that the profession
has recognized this situation.48 Thus, the
Committee also recommends that public
company auditing firms intensify their efforts
to create internships and mentoring programs
for students in accounting and other
complementary disciplines, including those
from HBCUs and community colleges, as a
means to increase the awareness of the
accounting profession and its attractiveness
among minority students.
(d) Increase the numbers of minority
accounting doctorates through focused
efforts.
Some dedicated programs have succeeded
in attracting minorities to enter and complete
accounting doctoral studies.49 In particular,
the PhD Project, an effort of the KPMG
Foundation, has worked to increase the
diversity of business school faculty.50 The
PhD Project focuses on attracting minorities
to business doctoral programs, and provides
a network of peer support. Since the PhD
Project’s establishment in 1994, the number
of minority professors at U.S. business
schools has increased from 294 to 889.51
47 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Gilbert R. Vasquez,
Managing Partner, Vasquez & Company LLP, 4),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Vasquez02042008.pdf (highlighting the lack of
Hispanic role models and mentors in the
accounting profession).
48 See Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of George S. Willie,
Managing Partner, Bert Smith & Co., 2 (Jan. 30,
2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Willie120307.pdf (recommending the establishment
of a mentor program for minority accounting
students); Record of Proceedings (July 12, 2006)
(Written Testimony of Manuel Fernandez, National
Managing Partner—Campus Recruiting, KPMG LLP,
to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Financial Services
Committee, 5), available at https://
financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/
071206mf.pdf (identifying the lack of minority
faculty mentors and role models and noting
‘‘[w]hen students of color do not see professors of
their own ethnic background on the accounting
faculty, they are less apt to consider the option of
a career in accountancy’’).
49 For a list of educational support programs that
auditing firms are sponsoring, see Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Barry Salzberg, Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte
LLP, Appendix A), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Salzberg020408.pdf.
50 For further information on the PhD Project, see
https://www.phdproject.org/mission.html.
51 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Barry Salzberg, Chief Executive
Officer, Deloitte LLP, Appendix A), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Salzberg020408.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28195
Ninety percent who enter the PhD Project
earn their doctorates, and 99% of those who
completed their doctorates go on to teach.52
The PhD Project has received over $17.5
million 53 in funding since 1994 from
corporations, foundations, universities, and
other interested parties.54
The Committee believes that programs
such as these can successfully recruit
minorities to accounting doctoral studies.
The Committee recommends that auditing
firms, corporations, and other interested
parties advertise existing and successful
efforts to increase the number of minority
doctorates by developing further dedicated
programs. Additionally, the Committee
recommends that auditing firms,
corporations, and other interested parties
maintain and increase the funding of these
programs.
Recommendation 3. Ensure a sufficiently
robust supply of qualified accounting faculty
to meet demand for the future and help
prepare new entrants to the profession to
perform high quality audits.
The Committee heard testimony from
individuals regarding the need to have an
adequate supply of faculty with the
knowledge and experience to develop
qualified professionals for the increasingly
complex and global auditing profession.55
The Committee recognizes that there is a
high level of concern about the adequacy of
both the near and the long-term supply of
doctoral faculty, especially given the
anticipated pace of faculty retirements.
According to National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty data, the number of
52 See Jane Porter, Going to the Head of the Class:
How the PhD Project is Helping to Boost the
Number of Minority Professors in B-schools,
BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE, Dec. 27, 2006, available
at https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/
dec2006/bs20061227_926455.htm.
53 See Record of Proceedings (July 12, 2006)
(Written Testimony of Manuel Fernandez, National
Managing Partner—Campus Recruiting, KPMG LLP,
to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Financial Services
Committee, 5), available at https://
financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/
071206mf.pdf.
54 For further information on the PhD Project, see
https://www.phdproject.org/corp_sponsors.html.
55 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of David W. Leslie, Chancellor
Professor of Education, College of William and
Mary), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Leslie120307.pdf (noting a 13.3% decline in
accounting faculty from 1988 to 2004); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive Officer, Grant
Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant Thornton
International Board of Governors, 5), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf
(stating that ‘‘recent years have seen a reduction in
accounting faculty, based on a wave of retirements
and lack of accounting PhDs coming into the
system.’’); Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans
Distinguished Professor, and Head, Department of
Accountancy, University of Illinois, 4), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Solomon120307.pdf
(stating that ‘‘the number of persons entering
accountancy doctoral programs is too low to sustain
the accountancy professoriate.’’).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28196
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
full- and part-time accounting faculty at all
types of educational institutions fell by
13.3% from 20,321 in 1993 to 17,610 in 2004,
while student (undergraduate) enrollment
has increased by 12.3% over the same
period.56 Moreover, the current pipeline of
doctoral faculty is not keeping pace with
anticipated retirements. In November 2006, it
was estimated that one-third of the
approximately 4,000 accounting doctoral
faculty in the United States were 60 years old
or older, and one-half were 55 years old or
older.57 The average retirement age of
accounting faculty was 62.4 years.
In terms of specialization within the
accounting discipline, an AAA study
concluded that only 22% and 27% of the
projected demand for doctoral faculty in
auditing and tax, respectively, will be met by
expected graduations in the coming years.58
However, 91% and 79% of the projected
demand for doctoral faculty in financial
accounting and managerial accounting,
respectively, will be met.59
In addition to the accounting faculty
supply issues, the Committee heard
testimony from witnesses on the need to
ensure faculty are qualified and able to teach
students the latest market developments,
such as fair value accounting and IFRS. The
Committee learned that often new accounting
faculty may have little practical experience.60
Witnesses testified to the difficulty of
academics’ acquiring ‘‘practice-oriented’’
knowledge as the bond between the
profession and academia is underdeveloped.
Witnesses did suggest improving these
relationships with incentives for sabbaticals
and sharing practice experience.61
56 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of David W. Leslie, Chancellor
Professor of Education, College of William and
Mary), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Leslie120307.pdf.
57 James R. Hasselback, 2007 Analysis of
Accounting Faculty Birthdates, available at https://
aaahq.org/temp/phd/JimHasselbackBirthdateSlide.
pdf.
58 R. David Plumlee, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Silvia
A. Madeo, Jamie H. Pratt, and George Krull,
Assessing the Shortage of Accounting Faculty, 21
Issues in Accounting Education, No. 2, 119 (May
2006).
59 R. David Plumlee, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Silvia
A. Madeo, Jamie H. Pratt, and George Krull,
Assessing the Shortage of Accounting Faculty, 21
Issues in Accounting Education, No. 2, 119 (May
2006).
60 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Joseph V. Carcello, Director of
Research, Corporate Governance, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, 21), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Carcello120307.pdf.
61 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director,
Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf (noting
that the auditing firms recognize the need to be
more active in sharing practical experiences with
academics); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers,
Professor of Accountancy, Arizona State University,
19), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (‘‘[R]elationships between
practitioners and academics have so diminished
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
In this regard, the Committee makes the
following recommendations:
(a) Increase the supply of accounting
faculty through public and private funding
and raise the number of professionally
qualified faculty that teach on campuses.
The Committee recognizes that ensuring an
adequate supply of doctoral accounting
faculty in higher education is crucial to both
retaining the academic standing of the
discipline on campus and developing wellprepared and educated entry-level
professionals. The resource represented by
these professionals is essential for high
quality audits. The Committee believes that
high quality audits are critical to wellfunctioning capital markets, and therefore the
funding necessary to provide the healthy
pipeline of doctoral accounting faculty to
assist in providing these human capital
resources must be provided. The Committee
therefore recommends expanding
government funding, at both the federal and
state level, for accounting doctoral
candidates. The Committee also recommends
that private sources (including corporations,
institutional investors, and foundations as
well as auditing firms) continue to be
encouraged to fund accounting doctoral
candidates. The Committee recognizes and
commends the auditing firms’ support of
doctoral candidates.62
Currently, minimum accreditation
requirements for accountancy faculty
typically require that approximately 50% of
full-time faculty have a doctoral degree.
Commonly, business school deans and
academic vice presidents (those making the
budgetary decisions regarding faculty
allotments on campuses) interpret this
accreditation requirement to require that a
minimum of 50% of a department’s faculty
hold an earned doctorate and are actively
engaged in research and publication activity.
Although a high percentage of faculty are
expected to be professionally qualified (i.e.,
having recent direct business experience), at
times gatekeepers for budget allocations may
be less enthusiastic about maximizing the
number of professionally qualified teaching
slots in a given program. The Committee sees
benefits to the increased participation of
professionally qualified and experienced
faculty, who would bring additional practical
business experience to the classrooms, and
notes that witnesses and commenters have
underscored the benefits of professionally
qualified and experienced faculty.63
that they are little more than formal liaison
assignments involving very few parties from any
side * * * [w]here there have been opportunities
for interaction (curriculum issues, policy
deliberations, research matters), those opportunities
have been embraced perceptibly less often’’).
62 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive
Director, Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf.
63 See Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Accountancy-Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisor, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 19
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMENT
SONTREASURYADVISORYCOMMITTEEOUTLIN
EFINALSUBMISSION13008.doc (stating that
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Therefore, the Committee recommends that
accrediting agencies continue to actively
support faculty composed of academically
and professionally qualified and experienced
faculty.
(b) Emphasize the utility and effectiveness
of cross-sabbaticals.
As discussed above, cross-sabbaticals are
interactive relationships where faculty and
seasoned professionals are regularly
represented in the practice and academic
environments through exchanges. For
example, currently, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FASB
offer fellowship programs for professional
accountants and accounting academics.
Evidence suggests that such exchanges can be
beneficial, and continued development of
such exchanges is expected to provide
substantial benefits for all parties.64 Crosssabbaticals present an opportunity for
‘‘reflective thinking’’ for seasoned
professionals.65 Academics often face the
disincentive of being forced to forgo their full
salaries in order to engage in such
sabbaticals,66 and colleges and universities
may not encourage professional practice
sabbaticals, preferring that the focus of
faculty be directed exclusively toward
academic research and the number and
placement of scholarly articles. The
Committee believes that changing both the
academic and practice culture will require a
‘‘[t]here are clearly practice professionals that make
excellent contributions to some of the most highly
rated accounting programs in the country’’); Record
of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission
of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director, Center for
Audit Quality, 3) available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf (stating that
accreditation bodies ‘‘revise accreditation standards
to allow the employment of more audit
professionals, either active or retired, as adjunct
professors’’).
64 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive
Director, Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf
(recommending encouraging sabbaticals,
internships, and fellowship opportunities,
structured to give faculty opportunities to conduct
research for promotion and tenure); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral Remarks of Phillip
M.J. Reckers, Professor of Accountancy, Arizona
State University, 68), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Reckers020408.pdf (stating
that sabbaticals deliver professors ‘‘a wealth of
knowledge they could bring back in the
classroom’’).
65 See Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of H. Rodgin Cohen, Chairman, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, 69), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/minutes-03-13-08.pdf; Record of
Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral Remarks of ZoeVonna Palmrose, Deputy Chief Accountant, SEC,
67), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/agendas/minutes-03-1308.pdf.
66 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of
Accountancy, Arizona State University, 67–69),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (noting the financial
disincentives associated with sabbaticals).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
plan and commitment of support at the
highest institutional levels.
Specifically, the Committee recommends
that educational institutions, auditing firms,
corporations, federal and state regulators, and
others engage in a two-fold strategy to both
encourage cross-sabbaticals and eliminate
financial or career disincentives for
participating in such experiences. Further,
the Committee recommends that university
administrators place as high a value on
professional sabbaticals for purposes of
promotion and tenure for research and
scholarly publication.
The Committee also recommends that
accrediting agencies establish an expectation
that at least one full-time member per year
of each accounting faculty group participate
in a sabbatical with a private sector or a
governmental entity. Auditing firms,
corporations, government agencies, and
universities should be expected to provide
these opportunities with the elimination of
any financial disincentives. Further, the
Committee recommends expanding faculty
fellowship programs in agencies, such as
those at the SEC and the FASB, and making
them available at the PCAOB. The successful
long-term operation of these programs at the
SEC and the FASB and the application of
appropriate conflict-of-interest and recusal
rules have demonstrated that these programs
can be maintained and expanded while
protecting against conflicts of interest.
(c) Create a variety of tangible and
sufficiently attractive incentives that will
motivate private sector institutions to fund
both accounting faculty and faculty research,
to provide practice materials for academic
research and for participation of
professionals in behavioral and field study
projects, and to encourage practicing
accountants to pursue careers as
academically and professionally qualified
faculty.
As discussed above, there are concerns
about the adequate supply of accounting
faculty and about the need to have faculty
who can inject more practical experience into
classroom learning. Currently, there are few
specific financial incentives encouraging
private sector funding of accounting doctoral
faculty or sponsoring of professional
accountants to teach at educational
institutions. Nonetheless, the Committee
notes that the profession recognizes the need
to support initiatives to increase faculty and
is currently directing its efforts to raise funds
for such a new initiative.67
The Committee also heard from several
witnesses regarding the unavailability of data
relating to auditing practice and the impact
this lack of data has on research and
potentially on the profession’s sustainability.
In particular, witnesses stated that the
67 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive
Director, Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf
(stating that ‘‘[b]ecause of the profession’s concern
over the shortage of qualified faculty to teach
accounting, the AICPA Foundation, along with the
80 largest CPA firms, are working to raise more than
$17 million to fund additional PhD candidates at
participating universities’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
decline in auditing research materials,
including archival or experimental data will
lead to a further decline in faculty and
doctoral students specializing in auditing.68
Since educational institutions normally
require publications in top tier journals for
promotion or tenure, faculty and doctoral
students will conduct research in accounting
areas where data are prevalent.
The Committee also heard that encouraging
more professionally qualified and
experienced faculty will foster a stronger
relationship between academia and the
profession.69 Currently, there exists a need
for more interaction between academia and
the profession.70 Encouraging practicing
accountants to pursue careers as
academically and professionally qualified
faculty would bring practical business
experience to classrooms so that students are
better prepared to perform quality audits in
the dynamic business environment.
Finally, the Committee recommends that
Congress pass legislation creating a variety of
tangible incentives for private sector
institutions to establish support for
accounting and auditing faculty and faculty
research, to facilitate access to research data
and individuals, and to sponsor transition of
professional accountants from practice to
teaching positions. These incentives must be
sufficiently attractive to companies and
auditing firms to effect rapid behavioral
change, and should avoid cumbersome levels
of administration. The Committee believes
that these incentives would provide the
68 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Joseph V. Carcello, Director
of Research, Corporate Governance, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, 21), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Carcello120307.pdf
(‘‘[D]octoral students in * * * [a 2007] Deloitte
[Foundation] study indicated that lack of access to
public accounting firm and client data represented
a severe obstacle to the research they want to
conduct, and that this difficulty might result in
them focusing on a different accounting sub-area.
This issue must be addressed, or auditing may cease
to exist as a discipline on many university
campuses.’’); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers,
Professor of Accountancy, Arizona State University,
8), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (recommending the
development of a means ‘‘for researchers to gain
access to auditing related data’’ and noting, without
this means, interest in doctoral auditing programs
will continue to decline); Record of Proceedings
(Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of Ira Solomon,
R.C. Evans Distinguished Professor, and Head,
Department of Accountancy, University of Illinois,
7), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Solomon120307.pdf (noting the lack of auditing
research data and the ‘‘drastic decline in auditing
research among extant accountancy faculty and
among accountancy doctoral students’’).
69 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director,
Center for Audit Quality, 2), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf.
70 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of
Accountancy, Arizona State University, 19),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28197
necessary impetus to private sector
institutions to help increase the number of
accounting faculty as well as faculty with
significant practical experience.
Recommendation 4. Develop and maintain
consistent demographic and higher education
program profile data.
The Committee heard testimony regarding
the lack of consistent demographic and
higher education program profile data
concerning the profession.71 The need for
comparable, consistent, periodic information
regarding the demographic profile of
professional accountants and auditors,
related higher education program capacity,
entry-level supply and demand of personnel,
accounting firm retention and compensation
practices, and similar particulars are
fundamental to a meaningful understanding
of the human capital circumstances which
affect the public company auditing
profession and its future and sustainability.
Historically, there has been neither an
ongoing collection of data nor a centralized
location where the general public can access
data. For instance, the AICPA publishes a
supply and demand study every two years.
Additionally, various other groups, such as
the AAA, NASBA, colleges and universities,
and individuals collect some of these data
but not in a manner available and useful for
research.
Materials such as those supplied by the
Center for Audit Quality to the Committee,72
previous AICPA Supply and Demand
studies 73 and AAA-commissioned
demographic research 74 provide examples of
71 See e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of David A. Costello,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Association of State Board of Accountancy, 2–4
(Feb. 6, 2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/QFRs-12-3-07.pdf
(stating that ‘‘[s]ince 1970, * * * NASBA and the
AICPA have recognized the need for a national
database for Certified Public Accountants and have
taken steps leading to the development of the
database * * * [c]urrently, NASBA is not aware of
a mechanism or database which would provide an
accurate count of CPAs, without the effect of
‘double counting.’ ’’); Julia Grant, Demographic
Challenges Facing the CPA Profession, 20 Research
in Accounting Regulations 5 (2007) (forthcoming);
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans
Distinguished Professor, and Head, Department of
Accountancy, University of Illinois, 13), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Solomon120307.pdf
(noting the lack of comprehensive accounting
profession supply and demand data and
recommending the ‘‘establishment of a continuous
and comprehensive system that produces more
timely and reliable supply and demand data’’).
72 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession (Jan. 23, 2008).
73 Beatrice Sanders and Leticia B. Romeo, The
Supply of Accounting Graduates and the Demand
for Public Accounting Recruits—2005: For
Academic Year 2003–2004 (2005), available at
https://ceae.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/11715FC6F0A7-4AD6-8D28-6285CBE77315/0/Supply_
DemandReport_2005.pdf.
74 David Leslie, Accounting Faculty in U.S.
Colleges and Universities: Status and Trends, 1993–
2004, A Report of the American Accounting
Association (Feb. 19, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28198
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
the necessary information. In addition,
AICPA membership trends, augmented by
data available from state boards of
accountancy regarding numbers of licensees,
may be useful data.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the
establishment of a national cooperative
committee, comprised of organizations such
as the AICPA and the AAA, to encourage
periodic consistent demographic and higher
education program profile data. The
Committee believes that having such data
available will increase the ability of auditing
firms, corporations, investors, academics,
policy makers, and others to understand
more fully, monitor and evaluate, and take
necessary or desirable actions with respect to
the human capital in the auditing profession
and its future and sustainability.
Recommendation 5. Encourage the AICPA
and the AAA to jointly form a commission
to provide a timely study of the possible
future of the higher education structure for
the accounting profession.
The Committee heard testimony regarding
the feasibility of establishing a free-standing,
post-graduate professional educational
structure.75 Currently, there is no postgraduate institutional arrangement dedicated
to accounting and auditing. Graduate
programs in accounting are generally housed
within business schools and linked with
undergraduate accounting programs.
The history of the development of U.S.
educational programs and preparation for
accounting careers reveals a pattern of
evolution of increasing formal higher
education, with accreditation standards
following and reinforcing this evolution, and
with market needs providing the impetus and
context. Today, accrediting agencies have
recognized over 150 accounting programs as
the result of these programs’ improving
accounting education as envisioned by prior
studies and reports.
In a November 2006 Vision Statement, the
chief executive officers of the principal
international auditing networks noted the
challenges in educating future auditing
professionals, including the sheer quantity
and complexity of accounting and auditing
standards, rapid technological advancements,
and the need for specialized industry
knowledge.76 This development in the
market leads to a clear need to anticipate and
enhance the human capital elements of the
auditing profession. As such, this vision
statement provides the impetus to
75 See e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Oral Submission of Joseph V. Carcello, Director of
Research, Corporate Governance, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, 3), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/CarcelloOral
Statement120307.pdf (recommending that ‘‘the
Advisory Committee consider a different model—an
education model involving professional schools of
auditing * * * ’’); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4,
2008) (Written Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers,
Professor of Accountancy, Arizona State University,
3), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Reckers020408.pdf (discounting the feasibility of
free-standing professional schools).
76 Global Capital Markets and the Global
Economy: A Vision From the CEOs of the
International Audit Networks 15 (Nov. 2006).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
commission a group to study and propose a
long-term institutional arrangement for
accounting and auditing education.
As in the past, in the face of challenges of
the changing environment for the profession,
the Committee believes that the educational
system should thoughtfully consider the
feasibility of a visionary educational model.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that
the AICPA and the AAA jointly form a body
to provide a timely study of the possible
future of the higher education structure for
the accounting profession. This commission
may include representation from higher
education, practitioners from the wide
spectrum of the accounting and auditing
profession, regulators, preparers, users of the
profession’s services, and others. The
commission would consider the potential
role of a postgraduate professional school
model to enhance the quality and
sustainability of a vibrant accounting and
auditing profession. The commission should
consider developments in accounting
standards and their application, auditing
needs, regulatory framework, globalization,
the international pool of candidates, and
technology. Finally, a blueprint for this sort
of enhanced professional educational
structure would also require the
consideration of long-term market
circumstances, academic governance,
operations, programs, funding and resources,
the role of accreditation, and experiential
learning processes.
Other Issues Under Consideration
The Committee is also considering and
debating a variety of other issues. Further
elaboration on these issues will be included
in subsequent drafts of this Report.
VI. Firm Structure and Finances
In addressing the sustainability of the
auditing profession, the Committee sought
input on and considered a number of matters
relating directly to auditing firms, including
audit quality, governance, transparency,
global organization, financial strength, ability
to access capital, the investing public’s
understanding of auditors’ responsibilities
and communications, the limitations of
audits, particularly relating to fraud detection
and prevention, as well as the effect of
litigation where audits are alleged to have
been ineffective. The Committee also
considered the regulatory system applicable
to auditing firms.
While much data was available to the
Committee, such information was not
exhaustive. Certain information regarding
auditors of public companies, the auditor of
record, and audit fees is readily available.
Auditing firms also provide on a voluntarily
basis certain other information they believe
useful to clients, regulators, and/or investors.
Also, in connection with the work of the
Committee, the largest firms provided certain
additional input, through the Center for
Audit Quality (CAQ), sometimes by
individual firm and sometimes in
summarized format.77
77 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession (Jan. 23, 2008); Center for Audit Quality,
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
After reviewing these data and receiving
testimony from witnesses and comment
letters, the Committee focused on a few
specific areas: Fraud prevention and
detection; federal and state regulatory
system; governance; and disclosure of auditor
changes.
The Committee recommends that
regulators, the auditing profession, and
others, as applicable, effectuate the
following:
Recommendation 1. Strengthen auditing
firms’ fraud detection and prevention skills
and clarify communications with investors
regarding auditing firms’ fraud detection
responsibilities.
Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (PCAOB) standards currently require
auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain
reasonable assurance whether financial
statements are free of material misstatement,
including those caused by fraud.78 The
Committee considered testimony and
commentary regarding auditing firms’
responsibilities and practices relating to
fraud prevention and detection.79 The
auditing profession itself has recognized the
significance of its duties with respect to
fraud: ‘‘Perhaps no single issue is the subject
of more confusion, yet is more important,
than the nature of the obligation of auditors
to detect fraud—or intentional material
misstatement of financial information by
public companies.’’ 80
The Committee believes that continued
enhancement of auditors’ fraud prevention
and detection skills will improve financial
reporting and audit quality and enhance
investor confidence in financial reporting
and the auditing function. In that regard, the
Committee recommends the following:
(a) Urge the creation of a national center to
facilitate auditing firms’ and other market
participants’ sharing of fraud prevention and
detection experiences, practices, and data
and innovation in fraud prevention and
detection methodologies and technologies,
and commission research and other factfinding regarding fraud prevention and
detection, and further, the development of
best practices regarding fraud prevention and
detection.
No formal forum currently exists where
auditors and other market participants
Second Supplement to Report of the Major Public
Company Audit Firms to the Department of the
Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession (Apr. 16, 2008).
78 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement, Interim Auditing Standard AU 316 (Pub.
Company Accounting Oversight Bd. 2002).
79 See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Acountancy-Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisor, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 4
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMENTS
ONTREASURYADVISORYCOMMITTEEOUTLINE
FINALSUBMISSION13008.doc; Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Dennis Johnson, Senior Portfolio Manager,
Corporate Governance, California Public
Employees’ Retirement System, 5), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Johnson020408.pdf.
80 Serving Global Capital Markets and the Global
Economy: A View from the CEOs of the
International Audit Networks 12 (Nov. 2006).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
regularly share their views and experiences
relating to fraud prevention and detection in
the context of fraudulent financial reporting.
The Committee received testimony that it
would improve audit quality and benefit the
capital markets and investors and other
financial statement users for auditing firms to
share their fraud detection experiences 81 and
to develop best practices relating to fraud
prevention and detection.82
The Committee believes that a collective
sharing of fraud prevention and detection
experiences among auditors and other market
participants will provide a broad view of
auditor practices and ultimately improve
fraud prevention and detection capabilities
and enable the development of best practices.
The Committee also believes that research
into industry trends and statistics will help
auditors focus and develop procedures to
identify areas and situations at greater risk
for fraud. The Committee believes that best
practices regarding fraud prevention and
detection will enhance the internal processes
and procedures of auditing firms.
The Committee recommends the creation
of a national center both to facilitate auditing
firms’ sharing of fraud prevention and
detection experiences, practices, and data
and innovation in fraud prevention and
detection methodologies and technologies
and to commission research and other factfinding regarding fraud prevention and
detection. The Committee also recommends
that the auditing firms, forensic accounting
firms, certified fraud examiners, investors,
other financial statement users, public
companies, and academics develop, in
consultation with the PCAOB, the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC),
international regulators, and the National
Association of State Boards of Accountancy
(NASBA), best practices regarding fraud
prevention and detection. The Committee
also recognizes that a national center and
best practices will have greater impact if
these concepts are ultimately extended and
embraced internationally.
(b) Urge that the PCAOB and the SEC
clarify in the auditor’s report the auditor’s
role in detecting fraud under current auditing
standards and further that the PCAOB
periodically review and update these
standards.
The Committee considered testimony and
commentary regarding a long-standing
81 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Questions for the Record of Cynthia M. Fornelli,
Executive Director, Center for Audit Quality, 6
(Mar. 31, 2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/agendas/QFRs-2-408.pdf; Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of James S. Turley, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Ernst & Young LLP, 7),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Turley120307.pdf.
82 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief
Executive Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and
Chairman, Grant Thornton International Board of
Governors, 10), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf (stating that
‘‘[s]uccess also requires that the profession work
with standard setters and regulators to develop best
practices and the infrastructure for effective audits
designed to detect material financial fraud’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
‘‘expectations gap’’ between the public’s
expectations regarding auditor responsibility
for fraud detection and the auditor’s required
and capable performance of fraud
detection.83 The public may believe that
auditors will detect more fraud than those in
the profession believe can be reasonably
expected. This belief may be unreasonable in
some circumstances given the difficulties of
detecting fraud, especially before it has
resulted in a material misstatement. On the
other hand, public investors have raised
questions when large frauds have gone
undetected. The auditing standard governing
fraud detection, AU Section 316,
Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement Audit, notes that fraud may
involve deliberate concealment and collusion
with third parties.84 AU Section 316 states
that the ‘‘auditor has a responsibility to plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement,
whether caused by error or fraud.’’ This gap
between public expectation and the auditor’s
performance causes confusion and ultimately
undermines investor confidence in financial
reporting and the capital markets.
Commentary has suggested that auditors
must more effectively communicate their
responsibility regarding fraud detection and
prevention with investors and the capital
markets. The Committee agrees with this
suggestion. Accordingly, the Committee
believes that the auditor’s report should
articulate clearly to investors the auditor’s
83 See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Accountancy—Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisor, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 4
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMENTS
ONTREASURYADVISORYCOMMITTEE
OUTLINEFINALSUBMISSION13008.doc (stating
that ‘‘[i]f the discovery of material errors and fraud
is not a major part of what the audit is about, it is
not clear what value-added service the auditor
offers the investor and capital markets’’); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Questions for the
Record of Cynthia M. Fornelli, Executive Director,
Center for Audit Quality, 5 (Mar. 31, 2008)),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/agendas/QFRs-2-4-08.pdf (‘‘While
auditors provide reasonable assurance that fraud
material to the financial statements will be
detected, they cannot be expected to provide
absolute assurance that all material fraud will be
found. Cost-benefit constraints and the lack of
governmental subpoena and investigative powers,
among other factors, make absolute assurance
impossible.’’); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Dennis Johnson, California
Public Employees’ Retirement System, 5), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Johnson020408.pdf
(stating that ‘‘[o]f critical importance to investors is
the responsibility of auditors to detect fraud and
improve the timely communication of these frauds
to investors and shareowners.’’); Serving Global
Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A View
from the CEOs of the International Audit Networks
12 (Nov. 2006) (‘‘Nonetheless, there is a significant
‘expectations gap’ between what various
stakeholders believe auditors should do in detecting
fraud, and what audit networks are actually capable
of doing, at the prices that companies or investors
are willing to pay for audits.’’).
84 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement, Interim Auditing Standard AU 316 (Pub.
Company Accounting Oversight Bd. 2002).
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28199
role and limitations in detecting fraud. The
Committee believes that expressly
communicating to investors, other financial
statement users, and the public the role of
auditors in fraud detection would help
narrow the ‘‘expectations gap.’’
The Committee recommends that the
PCAOB and the SEC clarify in the auditor’s
report the auditor’s role and limitations in
detecting fraud under current auditing
standards. In addition, the Committee
recommends, in light of this continuing
‘‘expectations gap,’’ that the PCAOB review
the auditing standards governing fraud
detection and fraud reporting. Specifically,
the Committee recommends that the PCAOB
periodically review and update these
standards.
Recommendation 2. Encourage greater
regulatory cooperation and oversight of the
public company auditing profession to
improve the quality of the audit process and
enhance confidence in the auditing
profession and financial reporting.
The SEC, the PCAOB, and individual state
boards of accountancy regulate the auditing
profession. The SEC and the PCAOB enforce
the securities laws and regulations
addressing public company audits.
Individual state accountancy laws in 55
jurisdictions in the United States govern the
licensing and regulation of both individuals
and firms who practice as certified public
accountants.85 State boards of accountancy
enforce these laws and also administer the
Uniform CPA Examination. NASBA serves as
a forum for these boards to enhance their
regulatory effectiveness and communication.
The Committee believes that enhancing
regulatory cooperation and reducing
duplicative oversight of the auditing
profession by federal and state authorities
and enhancing licensee practice mobility
among the states are in the best interest of the
public and the effective operation of the
capital markets. In this regard, the Committee
recommends the following:
(a) Institute the following mechanism to
encourage the states to substantially adopt
the mobility provisions of the Uniform
Accountancy Act, Fifth Edition (UAA): 86 If
states have failed to adopt the mobility
provisions of the UAA by December 31, 2010,
Congress should pass a federal provision
requiring the adoption of these provisions.
The American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA) and NASBA jointly
author the UAA, a model bill which focuses
on the education, examination, and
experience requirements for certified public
accountants. As the name of the bill suggests,
the UAA advances the goal of uniformity, in
addition to protecting the public interest and
promoting high professional standards. In
2006 and 2007, recognizing the changing
global economy and the impact of electronic
commerce, the AICPA and NASBA proposed
amendments to the UAA to allow for a
streamlined framework for CPA ‘‘mobility’’ of
85 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of David A. Costello, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
State Board of Accountancy, 2), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Costello120307.pdf.
86 Uniform Accountancy Act (Fifth Ed. July 2007).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28200
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
practice among the states; that is, a CPA’s
practice privileges would be valid and
portable across all state jurisdictions beyond
that of the CPA’s resident state.87
According to NASBA, to date twenty-two
states have passed mobility legislation.
Twelve other states currently have mobility
legislation introduced and other bills are
anticipated in the 2008 legislative session.
Almost every state is now discussing or
considering mobility, and a number of other
state boards of accountancy have voted to
support and move forward with mobility.
The Committee considered testimony and
commentary on the importance to auditing
firms’ multi-state practices of the adoption of
the UAA’s mobility provisions.88 A NASBA
representative testified, ‘‘In order for our
capital market system to continue to prosper
and grow, NASBA recognized the need to
ensure that an efficient, effective mobility
system is in place that will allow CPAs and
their firms, as professional service providers,
to serve the needs of American businesses,
where ever they are located.’’ 89
The Committee believes that, given the
multi-state operations of many public
companies and the multi-state practices of
many auditing firms, practice mobility will
foster a more efficient operation of the capital
markets. The Committee recommends the
following mechanism to encourage the states
to adopt the UAA’s mobility provisions: If
states have failed to adopt the mobility
provisions of the UAA by December 31, 2010,
Congress should pass a federal provision
requiring the adoption of these provisions.
87 See Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of David A. Costello,
President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Association of State Board of Accountancy, 1 (Feb.
6, 2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/QFRs-12-3-2007.pdf (‘‘As
the global business community continues to
expand, CPAs will be required to practice beyond
the state in which they reside. Inefficiencies are
created when those individuals are required to
complete paperwork and submit a fee for every state
in which they perform professional services.’’).
88 See, e.g., Amper, Politziner and Mattia, P.C.,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 2
(Nov. 14, 2007) available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/
AmperPolitzinerMattia.pdf (noting that ‘‘[t]he ease
of performing audits in any state by a valid CPA
* * * without requiring to be licensed by each state
would be beneficial.’’); Record of Proceedings (Dec.
3, 2007) (Written Submission of Dennis Nally,
Chairman and Senior Partner, Pricewaterhouse
Coopers LLP, 5) (Dec. 3, 2008), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Nally120307.pdf (noting
that a number of states are cooperating and working
towards adopting uniform mobility requirements);
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Sumission of James S. Turley, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Ernst & Young LLP, 5), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Turley120307.pdf
(‘‘The Treasury Committee should suggest that the
states eliminate barriers to interstate practice by
universal adoption of the mobility provisions of the
Uniform Accountancy Act.’’).
89 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of David A. Costello, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
State Board of Accountancy, 6), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Costello120307.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Committee recognizes that some state
legislatures meet biannually, and for such
legislatures this deadline poses a challenge.
However, such a deadline should be
attainable and will encourage such
legislatures to place this issue high on their
agenda. The Committee also recommends
that the states participate in NASBA’s
Accountancy Licensee Database (ALD) as a
mechanism to assist in maintaining
appropriate oversight of CPAs throughout the
country regardless of where they practice and
that appropriate authorities interpret federal
and state privacy regulations to facilitate
implementation of the ALD.
(b) Require regular and formal roundtable
meetings of regulators and other
governmental enforcement bodies in a
cooperative effort to improve regulatory
effectiveness and reduce the incidence of
duplicative and potentially inconsistent
enforcement regimes.
Under the federal securities laws, the SEC
has enforcement authority over public
company auditing firms and oversight
authority over the PCAOB under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SarbanesOxley). Sarbanes-Oxley provides the PCAOB
with registration, reporting, inspection,
standard-setting, and enforcement authority
over public company auditing firms.90 In
addition, the fifty-five boards of accountancy
license, regulate, and enforce state
accountancy laws pertaining to certified
public accountants and their firms. In
addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
state attorneys general can bring enforcement
actions against auditing firms and their
employees.
The Committee considered testimony from
auditing firms on the duplicative and
sometimes inconsistent federal and state
oversight of the profession.91 The Committee
does recognize that both federal and state
regulators have made attempts to coordinate
better their enforcement activities.92 One
90 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7211–
7219.
91 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Dennis Nally, Chairman and
Senior Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 5),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/Nally120307
.pdf; Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive
Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant
Thornton International Board of Governors, 7),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Nusbaum020408.pdf; Record of Proceedings (Feb.
4, 2008) (Questions for the Record of Barry
Salzberg, Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte LLP,
App. A 4 (Mar. 31, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/QFRs-2-4-08.pdf (criticizing duplicative
auditing firm investigations by states with no nexus
to alleged conduct).
92 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Oral Remarks of David A. Costello, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
State Board of Accountancy, 98), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/agendas/minutes-12-3-07.pdf (noting that
‘‘[NASBA] has been working with the PCAOB very
closely coordinating efforts, trying to diminish as
much as possible the redundancy in enforcement’’)
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of David A. Costello, President and
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
witness suggested the possible formation of
a commission to help improve regulatory
effectiveness.93 Another witness urged state
and federal regulatory cooperation to ensure
harmonized regulation and licensure.94
The Committee recommends mandating
regular and formal roundtables of the
PCAOB, the SEC, the DOJ, the state boards
of accountancy, and the state attorneys
general, to periodically review the overall
enforcement regimes applicable to the public
company auditing profession. These
roundtables also should focus on regulatory
coordination, improvement, and consistent
approaches to enforcement to minimize
duplicative efforts. Because of the difficulty
and cost of bringing together many different
state agencies on a regular basis, the
Committee recommends that NASBA assist
states by taking a leadership role in
coordinating their responsibilities and
interests.
(c) Urge the states to create greater
financial and operational independence of
their state boards of accountancy.
The Committee is concerned about the
financial and operational independence of
state boards of accountancy from outside
influences, such as other state agencies, and
the possible effect on the regulation and
oversight of the accounting profession. A
number of state boards are under-funded 95
and lack the wherewithal to incur the cost of
investigations leading to enforcement. In
addition, some state boards fall under the
centralized administrative ‘‘umbrella’’ of
other state agencies and lack control of
financial resources and/or operational
independence necessary to carry out their
mandate of public protection.96 In some
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of
State Board of Accountancy, 6), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Costelllo120307.pdf (stating
that NASBA is assisting state boards in enforcement
cases involving multi-state activities).
93 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive
Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant
Thornton International Board of Governors, 7),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Nusbaum020408.pdf (noting that, ‘‘it would be
useful to evaluate the possibility of an interstate
commission for the whole of the audit profession.
Such a commission would bring together state
licensing authorities, the PCAOB, and appropriate
professional organizations. It would be the means
to rationalize existing disparities in licensing
qualifications, continuing education requirements
and peer review for non-public company audit
practices. It would also enable enforcement of
common regulations and license discipline across
state and federal jurisdictions.’’).
94 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Dennis Nally, Chairman and Senior
Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 5), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Nally120307.pdf.
95 National Association of State Boards of
Accountancy, Submission in Connection with the
December 3, 2007 Meeting of the Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession (Jan. 2008)
(documenting the wide spectrum of funding for
individual state boards of accountancy and noting
the number of full-time staff per state boards of
accountancy office).
96 Statement of Ronald J. Rotaru, Executive
Director, Accountancy Board of Ohio, before Ohio
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
cases, board members are nominated by
private associations whose constituencies are
not necessarily focused on the protection of
the public.
The Committee believes that greater
independence of state boards of accountancy
would enhance their regulatory effectiveness.
The Committee recommends that, working
with NASBA, states evaluate and develop
means to make their respective state boards
of accountancy more operationally and
financially independent of outside
influences. The Committee notes that this
Recommendation to ensure the
independence of state boards of accountancy
is not meant to limit in any way the efforts
of regulators and other governmental
enforcement bodies to coordinate their
regulatory and enforcement activities as
recommended in Recommendation 2(b).
Recommendation 3. Urge the PCAOB and
the SEC, in consultation with other federal
and state regulators, auditing firms, investors,
other financial statement users, and public
companies, to analyze, explore, and enable,
as appropriate, the possibility and feasibility
of firms appointing independent members
with full voting power to firm boards and/or
advisory boards with meaningful governance
responsibilities to improve governance and
transparency at auditing firms.
In response to the recent corporate
accounting scandals, related legislative and
regulatory requirements and best practices,
public companies enhanced their corporate
governance. One of the most prominent
alterations to the corporate governance
scheme was the increased representation and
strengthening of independent members of
boards of directors. The New York Stock
Exchange and the Nasdaq enhanced their
public company listing standards to call for
a majority of independent board members.97
Best practices have gone even further, calling
for a ‘‘substantial majority’’ of independent
directors.98
A combination of Sarbanes-Oxley
provisions and exchange listing standards
mandate fully independent audit committees,
nominating/corporate governance, and
compensation committees.99 In addition,
H. Finance Committee of the Ohio House of
Representatives 1 (Mar. 18, 2005) (‘‘The evidence
shows that ‘consolidated’ states have difficulty in
effectively enforcing the statutes governing the
profession under their central agency umbrella.’’).
97 New York Stock Exchange, Listed Company
Manual § 303A.01 (2003); Nasdaq, Manual, Rule
4350(c).
98 See, e.g., The Business Roundtable, Principles
of Corporate Governance (May 2002)
(recommending, among other things, a substantial
majority of independent directors and fully
independent audit, corporate governance/
nominating, and compensation committees); The
Conference Board, Commission on Public Trust and
Private Enterprise (Jan. 9, 2003) (recommending,
among other things, a substantial majority of
independent directors and regular executive
sessions of the independent directors).
99 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78–j (2002)
(mandating audit committees comprised solely of
independent directors); New York Stock Exchange,
Listed Company Manual § 303A.04 (2004)
(requiring nominating/corporate governance
committees comprised solely of independent
directors); New York Stock Exchange, Listed
Company Manual § 303A.05 (2004) (requiring
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
independent directors’ responsibilities have
increased. For example, the independent
audit committee now appoints, oversees, and
compensates the auditor.100 Although
difficult to quantify the benefits of these
enhancements, many have extolled these
reforms as improving the quality of board
oversight, reducing conflicts of interest, and
enhancing investor confidence in public
company operations and financial
reporting.101
Public company auditing firms as private
partnerships are not subject to these
requirements. Instead, state laws and
partnership agreements determine the
governance of auditing firms.102 Often a
firm’s governing body is comprised of elected
firm partners.103 Some firms are currently
using advisory boards, although these may
not be well-publicized or transparent.
Several witnesses testified to the benefits
of improving auditing firm governance and
suggested the addition of independent
members to the boards of directors.104 One
compensation committees comprised solely of
independent directors); New York Stock Exchange,
Listed Company Manual § 303A.06 (2003)
(mandating compliance with SEC rules requiring
audit committees comprised solely of independent
directors); Nasdaq, Manual, Rule 4350(d)
(mandating compliance with SEC rules requiring
audit committees comprised solely of independent
directors). Note that the Nasdaq listing standards do
not require the existence of nominating/corporate
governance committees and compensation
committees.
100 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78–j (2002).
101 For example, see the commentary
accompanying New York Stock Exchange, Listed
Company Manual § 303A.01 (‘‘Requiring a majority
of independent directors will increase the quality
of board oversight and lessen the possibility of
damaging conflicts of interest.’’).
102 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession 2 (Jan. 23, 2008).
103 Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession 2–22 (Jan. 23, 2008) (detailing the
various governance structures of the largest six
auditing firms); Cynthia M. Fornelli, Executive
Director, Center for Audit Quality, and James S.
Turley, Chair, Governing Board, Center for Audit
Quality, and Chairman and CEO, Ernst & Young
LLP, Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline
13 (Nov. 30, 2007), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/Treasurycomment
letterfinal11302007.pdf (noting the largest auditing
firms have supervisory boards overseeing
management).
104 See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Accountancy-Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisory, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 12
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/
BAILEYCOMMENTSONTREASURY
ADVISORYCOMMITTEEOUTLIN
EFINALSUBMISSION13008 (‘‘[I]ndependent board
members similar to those found on public company
boards would be a good governance practice and
would signal the markets about the firms’ positive
commitment to the public good.’’); Record of
Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Dennis Johnson, Senior Portfolio Manager,
Corporate Governance, California Public
Employees’ Retirement System, 3), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/02042008/Johnson020408.pdf
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28201
witness called for an entirely independent
board with enhanced responsibilities,
including chief executive officer selection,
determining partner compensation, and
monitoring potential conflicts of interest and
audit quality.105 An auditing firm
representative noted that his firm was
considering adding independent members on
its international governing board.106
The Committee believes that enhancing
corporate governance of auditing firms
through the appointment of independent
board members, whose duties run to the
auditing firm and its partners/owner, to
advisory boards with meaningful governance
responsibilities (possible under the current
business model), and/or to firm boards could
be particularly beneficial to auditing firm
management and governance.107 The
Committee also believes that such advisory
boards and independent board members
could improve investor protection through
enhanced audit quality and firm
transparency. The Committee is particularly
intrigued by the idea of independent board
members with duties and responsibilities
similar to those of public company nonexecutive board members.
The Committee recognizes the multiple
challenges that instituting a governance
structure with independent board members
might entail, including compliance with state
partnership laws and independence
requirements, insurance availability for such
directors, and liability concerns.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that the PCAOB and the SEC, in consultation
with federal and state regulators, auditing
firms, investors, other financial statement
users, and public companies, analyze,
explore, and enable, as appropriate, the
possibility and feasibility, within the current
context of independence requirements and
the liability regime, of firms’ appointing
independent board members and advisory
boards. The Committee notes that the PCAOB
and the SEC should consider the size of
auditing firms in analyzing and developing
any governance proposals.
Recommendation 4. Urge the SEC to
amend Form 8–K disclosure requirements to
characterize appropriately and report every
(stating that independent board of directors could
possibly decrease potential conflicts of interest).
105 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Paul G. Haaga Jr., Vice Chairman,
Capital Research and Management Company, 2),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/Haaga020408
.pdf.
106 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive
Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant
Thornton International Board of Governors, 7),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Nusbaum020408.pdf.
107 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive
Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant
Thornton International Board of Governors, 7),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Nusbaum020408.pdf (‘‘Such a change in the
governance model may be one way to strengthen
our ability to serve market participants and
reinforce independence.’’).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28202
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
public company auditor change and to
require auditing firms to notify the PCAOB
of any premature engagement partner
changes on public company audit clients.
In 2006, over 1,300 public companies
changed their auditor and from 2002 to 2006
over 6,500 public companies changed their
auditor.108 Under current SEC regulations, a
public company must disclose any auditor
change on Form 8–K.109 SEC regulations
require disclosure of any disagreements on
financial disclosures during the preceding
two years prior to the resignation and
whether some issue, such as the auditor’s
inability to rely on management’s
representations, may put into question
financial disclosure reliability. SEC
regulations also allow a public company to
request that the auditor respond with a letter
addressed to the SEC stating whether it
agrees with the company’s disclosure and, if
it does not agree, stating why.
While the SEC does attempt to uncover
through its rules whether the auditor change
relates to disagreements over accounting and
reporting matters, the SEC rules do not
require a public company to provide a reason
for the auditor’s departure in the vast
majority of cases. The limitations of the
existing disclosure requirements have
resulted in companies failing to disclose any
reason for their auditor changes in
approximately 70% of the more than 1,300
auditor changes occurring in 2006.110
The Committee considered testimony and
commentary regarding the lack of clear
disclosure surrounding auditor changes.
Testimony and commentary viewed the lack
of transparency surrounding auditor changes
as detrimental to investor confidence in
financial reporting. 111 Testimony and
commentary suggested greater transparency
regarding auditor changes would compel
audit committees to more closely evaluate
auditor selection decisions and lead to
greater competition in the audit market.112
108 See Mark Grothe and Blaine Post, Speak No
Evil, GLASS LEWIS & CO RESEARCH 12 (May 21,
2007).
109 Form 8–K, available at https://www.sec.gov/
about/forms/form8-k.pdf.
110 See Mark Grothe and Blaine Post, Speak No
Evil, GLASS LEWIS & CO RESEARCH 12 (May 21,
2007).
111 See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Accountancy-Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisor, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 4
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMENTSON
TREASURYADVISORYCOMMITTEEOUTLINE
FINALSUBMISSION13008.doc (recommending SEC
and PCAOB disclosures of auditor changes to
enhance the growth of smaller auditing firms);
Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral Remarks
of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive Officer,
Grant Thornton LLP, and Chairman, Grant
Thornton International Board of Governors, 193–
94), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/agendas/minutes-2-4-08.pdf
(calling for expanded Form 8–K disclosure
requirements as ‘‘in the best interest of investors’’).
112 See e.g., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief
Executive Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and
Chairman, Grant Thornton International Board of
Governors, 3), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Committee believes that explicitly
stating the reason for an auditor change will
assist investors in determining the quality of
financial reporting and subsequent
investment decisions. The Committee
recommends that the SEC amend its Form 8–
K disclosure on auditor changes by providing
for the following mechanism: The public
company would file within four days of an
auditor change a Form 8–K disclosing that an
auditor had resigned, was terminated, or did
not seek reappointment; the company would
appropriately characterize and state in all
cases in plain English the reason or reasons
for the change. The company would also
disclose whether its audit committee agreed
with the disclosure it has provided. The
company would also provide the auditor
with a copy of the disclosure and request a
response as to the accuracy of the disclosure.
The company would include any response as
an exhibit to the company’s Form 8–K filing,
or if received following the due date for the
Form 8–K, in a subsequent Form 8–K. As
discussed above under current SEC
regulations, the public company can request
that the auditor respond to the company’s
statements in the Form 8–K regarding
disagreements over accounting and financial
matters.
In addition, the Committee recommends
that auditing firms notify the PCAOB of any
engagement partner changes on public
company audits if made before the normal
rotation period and, other than for
retirement, the reasons for those changes.113
Other Issues Under Consideration
While the work of the Committee is
incomplete at this point, the Committee has
tentatively concluded it will not make a
recommendation regarding vehicles to access
outside capital. The Committee notes that
some witnesses have suggested changing the
capital structure of auditing firms to allow
access to capital.114
The Committee is also considering and
debating a variety of other issues. Further
elaboration on these issues will be included
in subsequent drafts of this Report.
02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf (noting that the
Committee should examine ‘‘[c]omprehensive
disclosures about reasons for auditor switches’’).
113 But cf., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Paul G. Haaga Jr., Vice
Chairman, Capital Research and Management
Company, 2), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Haaga020408.pdf (calling for public
disclosure on audit partner changes other than for
rotation requirements); Record of Proceedings (Feb.
4, 2008) (Oral Remarks of D. Paul Regan, President
and Chairman, Hemming Morse Inc., 194–195 (Feb.
4, 2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/agendas/minutes-2-4-08.pdf
(commenting that ‘‘if an audit partner is * * *
rotated [early] off of an issuer, there ought to be a
disclosure, and there ought to be communication
from the partner who was rotated off early as to [the
reason for the early rotation] * * * because in
many instances * * * there [i]s
controversy* * *’’).
114 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of James R. Doty, Partner,
Baker Botts LLP, 3 (Feb. 19, 2008)), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/QFRs-12-3-2007.pdf (suggesting allowing
auditing firms to organize as limited liability
companies or corporate entities to allow for the
issuance of equity or debt securities).
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
VII. Concentration and Competition
The Committee analyzed public company
audit market concentration and competition.
In its work the Committee focused on
concentration and competition in the context
of their impact on audit quality and
effectiveness. In turn, consideration of the
sustainability of the auditing profession was
also subject to examination in the context of
audit quality and effectiveness. The
recommendations set out below reflect this
focus.
During the course of its deliberations, the
Committee received testimony and
commentary from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB), academics, auditing firms,
investors, and others regarding audit market
concentration and competition.
In January 2008, the GAO issued Audits of
Public Companies: Continued Concentration
in Audit Market for Large Public Companies
Does Not Call for Immediate Action,115
updating its 2003 report on audit market
concentration.116 The GAO concluded that
the four largest auditing firms continue to
dominate the large public company audit
market. In 2006, the four largest auditing
firms audited 98% of the 1500 largest public
companies with annual revenues over $1
billion and 92% of public companies with
annual revenues between $500 million and
$1 billion. However, concentration in the
small and mid-size public company audit
market has eased during the past five years.
The largest firms’ share in auditing small
public companies with annual revenues
under $100 million has declined from 44%
in 2002 to 22% in 2006 and in auditing midsize public companies with annual revenue
between $100 million and $500 million from
90% in 2002 to 71% in 2006.117
The Committee considered the testimony
of several witnesses regarding the reasons for
the continued concentration in the large
public company audit market. Auditing
firms, public companies, market participants,
academics, investors and others reasoned
that large public companies with operations
in multiple countries need auditing firms
with global resources and technical and
industry expertise to deal with an
increasingly complex business and financial
reporting environment.118 These needs limit
115 U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Audits of Public Companies: Continued
Concentration in Audit Market for Large Public
Companies Does Not Call for Immediate Action,
GAO–08–163 (Jan. 2008) [hereinafter 2008 GAO
Report].
116 GAO, Public Accounting Firms: Mandated
Study on Consolidation and Competition, GAO–03–
864 (July 2003) (finding that ‘‘although audits for
large public companies were highly concentrated
among the largest accounting firms, the market for
audit services appeared competitive according to
various indicators’’).
117 2008 GAO Report 19. The GAO also found that
the largest firms collected 94% of all audit fees paid
by public companies in 2006, slightly less than the
96% they collected in 2002. 2008 GAO Report 16.
118 See, e.g., 2008 GAO Report 21 (surveyed
companies most frequently cited size and
complexity of their operations (92%), the auditor’s
technical capability with accounting principles and
auditing standards (80%), and the need for industry
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
auditor choice to only the largest auditing
firms for many large public companies. The
Committee heard from witnesses who also
described barriers to the growth of smaller
auditing firms, including the behavior of
underwriters and other capital market
participants.119
In analyzing these data on concentration
and limited auditor choice in the large public
company audit market, the Committee
focused on the potential negative impact of
concentration on audit quality. Some have
suggested the lack of competition may not
provide sufficient incentive for the dominant
auditing firms to deliver high quality and
innovative audit services.120
Notwithstanding the increasing number of
public company financial restatements,121
the Committee heard from several witnesses
that audit quality had improved.122 For
example, the GAO observed that market
participants and public company officials
had noted improvement in recent years in
audit quality, including auditing firm staff’s
technical expertise, responsiveness to client
needs, and ability to identify material
financial reporting matters.123 Much of the
improvement was credited to the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), which
enhanced auditor independence, replaced
the self-regulation of the auditing profession
with the PCAOB, mandated evaluation and
disclosure of the effectiveness of internal
controls over financial reporting,124 and
specialization or expertise (67%)); Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
Wayne Kolins, National Director of Assurance and
Chairman, BDO Seidman LLP, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Kolins120307.pdf;
Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Neal D. Spencer, Managing Partner,
BKD, LLP, 1–4), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Spencer020408.pdf.
119 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of Brad Koenig, Former Managing Director
and Head of Global Technology Investment
Banking, Goldman Sachs, 219–220), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/Koenig020408.pdf (describing underwriters’
views of auditing firms other than the largest four
auditing firms).
120 2008 GAO Report 31–32.
121 See, e.g., Susan Scholz, The Changing Nature
and Consequences of Public Company Financial
Restatements 1997–2006 (April 2008).
122 2008 GAO Report 5; Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board, Report on the
PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, and 2006 Inspections of
Domestic Triennially Inspected Firms, PCAOB Rel.
No. 2007–010 (Oct. 22, 2007).
123 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Questions for the Record of Ms. Jeanette M.
Franzel, Director, Financial Management and
Assurance Team, U.S. Government Accountability
Office, 2 (Jan. 30, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
QFRs-12-3-2007.pdf (observing that the market
believes the ‘‘bar had been raised’’ on audit quality).
See also Center for Audit Quality, Report on the
Survey of Audit Committee Members (March 2008)
(concluding that: 17% of surveyed audit committee
members view audit quality as good, 53% as very
good, 25% as excellent, while 82% say overall
quality has improved somewhat/significantly over
the past several years).
124 2008 GAO Report 32.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
strengthened audit committee membership,
independence, and responsibilities.
Although industry concentration can lead
to increased prices, the Committee notes that
the GAO concluded that higher audit market
concentration has not been associated with
higher fees. Public companies, auditing
firms, and other market participants believe
the considerable increase in audit fees in
recent years is due not to market power of
a concentrated industry, but to the increased
requirements under Sarbanes-Oxley, the
complexity of accounting and financial
reporting standards, the need to hire and
retain qualified audit staff, and the
independence requirements (which have led
to the possible re-pricing of audits to their
unbundled market price).125 The Committee
also considered the impact of the possible
loss of one of the four largest accounting
firms in light of the high degree of
concentration of public company auditing,
and especially large public company
auditing, in those firms. The GAO noted the
possibility of this loss due to issues arising
out of firm conduct, such as civil litigation,
federal or state regulatory action or criminal
prosecution, or economic events, such as a
merger.126 The GAO posited potential
negative effects of such a loss, including the
following: Further limitations on large public
company auditor choice, costs associated
with changing auditors, and companies’
inability to obtain timely financial statement
audits.127 However, the GAO did not
recommend insulating auditing firms directly
from either the legal or market consequences
of their actions.
With the above considerations in mind, the
Committee recommends that regulators, the
auditing profession, and other bodies, as
applicable, effectuate the following:
Recommendation 1. Reduce barriers to the
growth of smaller auditing firms consistent
with an overall policy goal of promoting
audit quality. Because smaller auditing firms
are likely to become significant competitors
in the market for larger company audits only
in the long term, the Committee recognizes
that Recommendation 2 will be a higher
priority in the near term.
The GAO concluded that concentration in
the large public company audit market will
not be reduced in the near term by smaller
auditing firms. The Committee considered
testimony regarding the reasons that smaller
auditing firms are unable or unwilling to
enter the large public company audit market.
Challenges facing these firms’ entry into this
market typically include the following: lack
of staffing and geographic limitations on both
the physical span of their practices and
experience and expertise with global auditing
complexities; inability to create global
networks necessary to serve global clients,
due to lack of auditing firms abroad to act as
potential partners; the need for greater
125 2008 GAO Report 27–29. On the re-pricing of
audits, see also James D. Cox, The Oligopolistic
Gatekeeper: The U.S. Accounting Profession, in
After Enron: Improving Corporate Law and
Modernizing Securities Regulation in Europe and
the U.S., Chapter 9, Oxford, forthcoming, available
at https://ssrn.com/abstract=926360.
126 2008 GAO Report 34–35.
127 2008 GAO Report 35–36.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28203
technical capability and industry
specialization; lack of name recognition and
reputation; and limited access to capital.128
In addition, expanding into the large public
company audit market may be unattractive
for some smaller auditing firms for a variety
of reasons,129 including increased exposure
to litigation, the possibility that their
business model is not scaleable, and the fact
that for some smaller firms other aspects of
their business (such as private company
auditing and other work) has greater
potential for expansion.
To address these issues, the Committee
recommends that policy makers press for the
reduction of barriers, to the extent consistent
with audit quality and other public interest
factors, to the growth of smaller auditing
firms. For smaller firms, this includes
encouraging and promoting development of
technical resources in such areas as
international financial reporting standards
and fair value accounting, and development
of specialized or ‘‘niche’’ practices or
industry ‘‘verticals’’ where they are in the
best interests of investors and can lead to
more effective competition. Pressure also
should be applied against non-justifiable
resistance to using smaller firms on the part
of a variety of market actors.
The Committee believes that the following
specific and incremental actions would assist
in the growth of the smaller firms and their
entry into the large public company audit
market:
(a) Require disclosure by public companies
in their annual reports and proxy statements
of any provisions in agreements with third
parties that limit auditor choice.
The Committee considered testimony and
commentary that certain market participants,
such as underwriters, banks, and lenders,
may influence and effectively limit public
company auditor selection decisions.130 For
instance, certain contractual arrangements
limit public companies’ auditor choice.131
128 2008 GAO Report 37. See also Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
Wayne Kolins, National Director of Assurance and
Chairman, BDO Seidman LLP, 2), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Kolins120307.pdf
(describing as barriers for smaller auditing firms
liability risks, overly complex independence rules,
and an array of factors that audit committees may
review in choosing an auditor that best matches the
company); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Neal D. Spencer, Managing
Partner, BKD, LLP, 1), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Spencer020408.pdf (noting
that barriers include resources, institutional bias,
insurability, and liability).
129 2008 GAO Report 38.
130 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum, Chief
Executive Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and
Chairman, Grant Thornton International Board of
Governors, 3), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf (noting that
transparency regarding ‘‘restrictive contracts with
underwriters’’ could improve auditor choice). See
also 2008 GAO Report 47.
131 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Lewis H. Ferguson, III,
Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 2), available at
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
Continued
15MYN1
28204
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Consistent with the large public company
audit market, this practice is particularly
prevalent in the initial public offering (IPO)
arena, where an underwriter may include in
the underwriting agreement a provision
limiting the company’s auditor choice to a
specified group of auditing firms.132
Evidence suggests that auditor choice may be
more limited among the largest IPOs: While
midsize and smaller firms’ combined share of
the IPO market (by number of IPOs) has
increased progressively (rising from 18% in
2003 to 40% in 2007),133 the largest firms
continue to audit the majority of the largest
IPOs.134
The Committee believes these provisions
impair competition by limiting public
company auditor choice and the ability of
smaller auditors to serve a greater share of
the public company audit market.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) require public companies to disclose
any provisions in agreements limiting auditor
choice. The disclosure should identify the
agreement and include the names of the
parties to the agreement and the actual
provisions limiting auditor choice.135
(b) Include representatives of smaller
auditing firms in committees, public forums,
fellowships, and other engagements.
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Ferguson120307.pdf
(‘‘Sometimes lenders, investors, investment bankers
or credit rating agencies will insist that a company
seeking to access the capital markets have its
financial statements audited by one of the largest
accounting firms, adding a bias that has the
practical effect of being a barrier to entry.’’).
132 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Oral Remarks of Brad Koenig, Former Managing
Director and Head of Global Technology Investment
Banking, Goldman Sachs, 219–220), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/Koenig020408.pdf (noting underwriter
practices in auditor selection). See also Edwin J.
Kliegman, CPA, Comment Letter Regarding
Discussion Outline 2 (Nov. 26, 2007).
133 2008 GAO Report 44.
134 Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Brad Koenig, Former Managing
Director and Head of Global Technology Investment
Banking, Goldman Sachs, 2), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
Koenig020408.pdf (noting that from 2002–2007 the
largest four auditing firms had an 87% market share
of the 817 initial public offerings that exceeded $20
million). See also 2008 GAO Report 44 (‘‘Staff from
some investment firms that underwrite stock
issuances for public companies told [GAO] that in
the past they generally had expected the companies
for which they raised capital to use one of the
largest firms for IPOs but that now these
organizations were more willing to accept smaller
audit firms * * *. However, * * * most of the
companies that went public with a mid-size or
smaller auditor were smaller. In addition, these
firms’ share of IPOs of larger companies (those with
revenues greater than $150 million) rose from none
in 2003 to about 13 percent in 2007.’’).
135 The Committee notes that a group of market
participants put together by the United Kingdom’s
Financial Reporting Council to study audit market
competition has suggested similar disclosure of
contractual obligations limiting auditor choice. See
Financial Reporting Council, FRC Update: Choice
in the UK Audit Market 4 (Apr. 2007) [hereinafter
FRC Update] (recommending that ‘‘when explaining
auditor selection decisions, Boards should disclose
any contractual obligations to appoint certain types
of audit firms’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Committee considered testimony that
the lack of smaller firms’ name recognition
and reputation have hindered smaller
auditing firms’ ability to compete in the large
public company audit market. The GAO
noted that name recognition, reputation, and
credibility were significant barriers to smaller
auditing firm expansion.136 The PCAOB has
registered and oversees 982 U.S. auditing
firms and 857 foreign auditing firms.137
While it is not possible to include all smaller
firms, the Committee received testimony and
comment letters suggesting that there should
be greater inclusion and participation of
smaller firms in public and private sector
committees, roundtables, and fellowships.138
One auditing firm representative suggested
the creation of a PCAOB professional practice
fellowship program, reaching out to
professionals from auditing firms of various
sizes.139
The Committee believes increasing name
recognition and reputation could promote
audit market competition and auditor choice.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that regulators and policymakers, such as the
SEC, the PCAOB, and the Financial
Accounting Standards Board, include
representatives of smaller auditing firms in
committees, public forums, fellowships, and
other engagements.140
Recommendation 2. Monitor potential
sources of catastrophic risk faced by public
company auditing firms and create a
mechanism for the preservation and
rehabilitation of troubled larger public
company auditing firms.
136 2008 GAO Report 44 (‘‘Fifty percent of
accounting firms responding to [GAO’s] survey that
want to audit large companies said that name
recognition or reputation with potential clients was
a great or very great impediment to expansion.
Similarly, 54 percent of these firms cited name
recognition or credibility with financial markets
and investment bankers as a great or very great
impediment to expansion.’’). See also Edward J.
Kliegman, Comment Letter Regarding Discussion
Outline (Nov. 16, 2007).
137 Data are as of Feb. 21, 2008.
138 See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Professor of
Accountancy—Emeritus, University of Illinois, and
Senior Policy Advisor, Grant Thornton LLP,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline 16
(Jan. 30, 2008), available at https://
comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMENTS
ONTREASURYADVISORYCOMMITTEE
OUTLINEFINALSUBMISSION13008.doc; Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for the
Record of James S. Turley, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Ernst & Young LLP, 4 (Feb. 1,
2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/QFRs-12-3-2007.pdf.
139 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Wayne Kolins, National Director of
Assurance and Chairman, BDO Seidman LLP, 4),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Kolins120307.pdf. See Chapter V (recommending
the creation of a PCAOB fellowship program).
While maintenance and extension of professional
fellowship programs are also considered in the
Committee’s recommendations relating to human
capital matters, extending these opportunities
increasingly to firms of various sizes could assist
smaller firms in their ability to compete in the
public company audit market.
140 For a similar recommendation, see SEC
Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies,
Final Report 114 (Apr. 23, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Committee considered testimony
regarding the variety of potentially
catastrophic risks that public company
auditing firms face. These risks include
general financial risks and risks relating to
failure in the provision of audit services and
non-audit services, including civil litigation,
regulatory actions, and loss of customers,
employees, or auditing network partners due
to a loss of reputation.141
The Committee believes these risks are real
and notes that over the past two decades two
large auditing firms have gone out of
existence. In 1990, Laventhol & Horwath, at
the time the seventh largest auditing firm in
the United States, filed for bankruptcy
protection due in part to a failure in the
provision of non-audit services, and
subsequent class action litigation, loss of
reputation, and inability to attract and retain
clients.142 In 2002, Arthur Andersen, at the
time one of the five largest auditing firms in
the United States, dissolved. The Department
of Justice (DOJ) had criminally indicted the
auditing firm on obstruction of justice
charges relating to the audit of Enron. The
resulting inability to retain clients and
partners and keep together its global affiliate
network led to the collapse of Arthur
Andersen.143
In addition, KPMG recently faced the
possibility of criminal indictment relating to
its provision of tax-related services. In the
end, KPMG entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement with the DOJ.144
Many have suggested that a criminal
indictment would have led to the dissolution
of the firm.
Currently, BDO Seidman is appealing a
$521 million state judgment involving a
private company audit client. The auditing
firm’s chief executive has publicly stated that
141 See, e.g., 2008 GAO Report 32–36; Zoe-Vonna
Palmrose, Maintaining the Value and Viability of
Independent Auditors as Gatekeepers under SOX:
An Auditing Master Proposal, in Brookings-Nomura
Seminar: After the Horses Have Left the Barn: The
Future Role of Financial Gatekeepers 12–13 (Sept.
28, 2005). Civil litigation was the risk most often
cited by witnesses before the Committee. See, e.g.,
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of James D. Cox, Brainerd Currie
Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Cox120307.pdf. See also Eric R. Talley, Cataclysmic
Liability Risk among Big Four Auditors, 106 Colum.
L. Rev. 1641 (Nov. 2006)(’’On one hand, the pattern
of liability exposure during the last decade does not
appear to be the type that would, at least on first
blush, imperil the entire profession. On the other
hand, if one predicts historical liability exposure
patterns into the future, the risk of another firm
exiting due to liability concerns appears to be more
than trivial.’’).
142 See, e.g, 2008 GAO Report 33.
143 See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Public Accounting Firms: Mandated Study
on Consolidation and Competition 12 (July 2003)
(‘‘The criminal indictment of fourth-ranked
Andersen for obstruction of justice stemming from
its role as auditor of Enron Corporation led to a
mass exodus of Andersen partners and staff as well
as clients.’’).
144 2008 GAO Report 56–57, n. 60. Note that the
Department of Justice did indict several
individuals.
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
such a judgment amount would threaten the
firm’s viability.145
As discussed above, the Committee
believes that the loss of one of the larger
auditing firms would likely have a significant
negative impact on the capital markets. Of
greatest concern is the potential disruption to
capital markets that the failure of a large
auditing firm would cause, due to the lack of
sufficient capacity to audit the largest public
companies and the possible inability of
public companies to obtain timely audits.146
The Committee believes these concerns must
be balanced against the importance of
auditing firms and their partners, as private,
for-profit businesses, being exposed to the
consequences of failure, including both the
legal consequences and economic
consequences.
In consideration of these competing
concerns, the Committee makes the following
recommendations:
(a) As part of its current oversight over
registered auditing firms, the PCAOB should
monitor potential sources of catastrophic risk
which would threaten audit quality.
The PCAOB’s mission is to oversee
auditing firms conducting audits of public
companies. Its audit quality-focused mission
is intertwined with issues of catastrophic
risk, as most often risks to firms’ survival
historically have been largely the result of
significant audit quality failures or serious
compliance issues in the non-audit services
aspect of their business.
Sarbanes-Oxley provides the PCAOB with
registration, reporting, inspection, standardsetting, and enforcement authority over
public company auditing firms.147 Under its
inspection authority, the PCAOB inspects
audit engagements, evaluates quality control
systems, and tests as necessary audit,
supervisory, and quality control procedures.
For example, in its inspection of an auditing
firm’s quality control systems, the PCAOB
reviews the firm’s policies and procedures
related to partner evaluation, partner
compensation, new partner nominations and
145 Jury Awards Rise Against BDO Seidman,
Assoc. Press, Aug. 15, 2007.
146 See 2008 GAO Report 35, 36 (observing that
further audit market concentration would ‘‘leave
large companies with potentially only one or two
choices for a new auditor’’ and that ‘‘the market
disruption caused by a firm failure or exit from the
market could affect companies’ abilities to obtain
timely audits of their financial statements, reducing
the audited financial information available to
investors’’). See also London Economics, Final
Report to EC–DG Internal Market and Services,
Study on the Economic Impact of Auditors’
Liability Regimes 24 (Sept. 2006) (‘‘The adjustment
to a situation in which one of the Big-4 networks
fails is unlikely to be smooth. But the long run
consequences are likely to be limited provided the
overall statutory audit capacity does not fall
significantly. Among the various economic sectors,
financial institutions may find such a situation
particularly difficult as their statutory audits are
viewed as more risky and * * * two Big-4 firms
dominate the market for statutory audits of financial
institutions. The situation is likely to be much direr
if a second Big-4 network fails shortly after the first
one. Investors’ confidence will be in all likelihood
seriously affected and the adjustment to the new
situation is likely to be difficult.’’).
147 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7211–
7219.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
admissions, assignment of responsibilities,
disciplinary actions, and partner
terminations; compliance with independence
requirements; client acceptance and retention
policies and procedures; compliance with
professional requirements regarding
consultations on accounting, auditing, and
SEC matters; internal inspection program;
processes for establishing and
communicating audit policies, procedures,
and methodologies; processes related to
review of a firm’s foreign affiliate’s audit
performance; and tone at the top.148
The PCAOB also has authority to require
registered auditing firms to provide annual
and periodic reports. In May 2006, the
PCAOB issued Proposed Rules on Periodic
Reporting by Registered Public Accounting
Firms requiring annual and periodic
reporting.149 The PCAOB has not yet
finalized this proposal.
The Committee therefore recommends that
the PCAOB, in furtherance of its objective to
enhance audit quality and effectiveness,
exercise its authority to monitor meaningful
sources of catastrophic risk that potentially
impact audit quality through its programs,
including inspections, registration and
reporting, or other programs, as appropriate.
The objective of PCAOB monitoring would
be to alert the PCAOB to situations in which
auditing firm conduct is resulting in
increased catastrophic risk which is
impairing or threatens to impair audit
quality.
(b) Establish a mechanism to assist in the
preservation and rehabilitation of a troubled
larger auditing firm. A first step would
encourage larger auditing firms to adopt
voluntarily a contingent streamlined internal
governance mechanism that could be
triggered in the event of threatening
circumstances. If the governance mechanism
failed to stabilize the firm, a second step
would permit the SEC to appoint a courtapproved trustee to seek to preserve and
rehabilitate the firm by addressing the
threatening situation, including through a
reorganization, or if such a step were
unsuccessful, to pursue an orderly transition.
The Committee considered testimony
regarding the importance of the viability of
the larger auditing firms and the negative
consequences of the loss of one of these firms
on the capital markets. The Committee also
considered commentary regarding issues
auditing firms faced in addressing
circumstances that threatened their viability,
including, in particular, problems arising
from the need to work with regulators and
law enforcement agencies.150 Several
148 See, e.g., PCAOB, Observations on the Initial
Implementation of the Process for Addressing
Quality Control Criticisms within 12 Months after
an Inspection Report, PCAOB Release No. 104–
2006–078 (Mar. 21, 2006). See also the PCAOB’s
completed inspection reports at https://
www.pcaobus.org/Inspections/Public_Reports/
index.aspx#k.
149 PCAOB Release No. 2006–004 (May 23, 2006).
150 See, e.g., Securities and Exchange
Commission, Temporary Final Rule and Final Rule:
Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing
Clients, SEC Release No. 33–8070 (Mar. 18, 2002);
Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Rel.
No. 2002–39 and Order Rel. No. 33–8070 (March
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28205
witnesses suggested the development of a
mechanism to allow auditing firms facing
threatening circumstances to emerge from
those situations.151 Committee member and
former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul
Volcker opined that, ‘‘[I]f we had [such an]
arrangement at the time Andersen went
down, we would have saved it.’’ 152 The
Committee recommends the following twostep mechanism described below.
First Step—Internal Governance Mechanism
The Committee notes that auditing firms
operate as partnerships, generally led by a
centralized management team, with a
supervisory board of partners overseeing
management’s strategy and performance.153
In the event of threatening circumstances at
a larger auditing firm, the Committee believes
that a lack of effective centralized governance
mechanisms may delay crucial decision
making, impede difficult decisions that could
sustain the firm and its human assets, and
lessen the firm’s ability to communicate with
maximum responsiveness and effectiveness
with private, regulatory and judicial bodies.
The Committee therefore recommends that
larger auditing firms (those with 100 or more
public company audit clients that the PCAOB
inspects annually) establish in their
partnership agreements a contingent internal
governance mechanism, involving the
creation of an Executive Committee (made up
of partners or outsiders) with centralized firm
management powers to address threatening
circumstances. The centralized governance
mechanism would have full authority to
negotiate with regulators, creditors, and
others, and it would seek to hold the firm’s
organization intact, including preserving the
firm’s reputation, until the mitigation of the
threat, or, failing that, the implementation of
18, 2002) (indictment of Arthur Andersen); SEC
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 90 (Feb. 7, 1991)
(bankruptcy of Laventhol & Horwath).
151 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of James R. Doty, Partner, Baker Botts
L.L.P., 11–13), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
12032007/Doty120307.pdf (suggesting that the
Bankruptcy Code be amended to prevent creditors
whose claims relate to violations of professional
standards from opposing reorganization under a
court-approved plan; an automatic stay against
partners facilitating partner retention; expanding
the SEC’s emergency powers to enable the SEC to
act by summary order to address the registered
firm’s ability to continue to provide audit services;
and encouraging the SEC or PCAOB to discourage
‘‘client poaching’’ by requiring public companies to
show that switching auditors was not related to
mega-judgments against audit affiliates in other
jurisdictions). See also Record of Proceedings (Dec.
3, 2007) (Written Submission of Peter S. Christie,
Principal, Friemann Christie, LLC, 6), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Christie120307.pdf
(‘‘If it remains possible that a firm can fail for
reasons other than liability claims it may be
attention needs to be given to devices that will
permit a firm to re-emerge.’’).
152 Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of Committee Member Paul Volcker, 317),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/agendas/minutes-03–13–08.pdf.
153 Center for Audit Quality, Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of
the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession 13 (Jan. 23, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28206
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
the second step outlined below. The auditing
firm voluntarily would trigger the operation
of this mechanism upon the occurrence of
potentially catastrophic events specified in
the partnership agreement, such as civil
litigation or actual or significantly threatened
government or regulatory action. If necessary,
the SEC and the PCAOB could encourage the
firm to trigger the mechanism through private
communications, public statements, or other
means. Regulators could also assist in
maintaining the firm’s organization intact by,
for example, increasing the time period for
registrants that are audit clients to have
audits or reviews completed and providing
accelerated consultative guidance to
registrants that are audit clients.154 The
Committee recognizes the precise details of
such a mechanism would vary from auditing
firm to auditing firm, depending on firm
structures, history, and culture.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Second Step—External Preservation
Mechanism
The Committee also recommends that the
larger auditing firms establish in their
partnership agreements a rehabilitation
mechanism under SEC oversight. The failure
of the internal governance mechanism to
preserve the auditing firm outlined in the
first step above would trigger this second
step, which would require legislation. Upon
triggering of the second step, either
voluntarily by the firm or by the SEC, the
SEC would appoint a trustee, subject to court
approval, whose mandate would be to seek
to address the circumstances that threaten
survival, and failing that, to pursue a
reorganization that preserves and
rehabilitates the firm to the extent
practicable, and finally, if reorganization
fails, to pursue an orderly transition. If this
second mechanism is to include an element
that addresses claims of creditors (which
could include investors with claims, audit
and other clients, partners, other employees,
and others), legislation to integrate this
mechanism with the judicial bankruptcy
process may be necessary.
It is important that this mechanism not be
used as insurance for partner capital; that is,
this mechanism should not be developed to
‘‘bail out’’ a larger auditing firm, but rather
to preserve and rehabilitate the firm in order
to ensure the stable functioning of the capital
markets and the timely delivery of audited
financial statements to investors and other
financial statement users. Accordingly, there
must be powers that can be exercised in
furtherance of the objective of holding the
firm together.155
154 See, e.g., Securities and Exchange
Commission, Temporary Final Rule and Final Rule:
Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing
Clients, SEC Release No. 33–8070 (Mar. 18, 2002);
Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Rel.
No. 2002–39 and Order Rel. No. 33–8070 (March
18, 2002) (indictment of Arthur Andersen); SEC
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 90 (Feb. 7, 1991)
(bankruptcy of Laventhol & Horwath).
155 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of James R. Doty, Partner, Baker Botts
L.L.P., 11), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
12032007/Doty120307.pdf (Dec. 3, 2007) (‘‘It is an
anecdotal but firmly held perception of the
profession that no accounting firm has entered
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Committee also notes that the larger
auditing firms are members or affiliates of
global networks of firms and rely on these
networks to serve their global clients. Since
the networks are maintained through
voluntary contractual agreements, the fact
that a U.S.-based firm may be facing
threatening circumstances could lead to the
disintegration of the network. In this regard,
in developing this mechanism, auditing
firms, regulators, policy-makers, and other
market participants must consider the
practical implications resulting from the
relationship between the U.S.-based firms
and the global networks.
Recommendation 3. Recommend the
PCAOB, in consultation with auditors,
investors, public companies, audit
committees, boards of directors, academics,
and others, determine the feasibility of
developing key indicators of audit quality
and effectiveness and requiring auditing
firms to publicly disclose these indicators.
Assuming development and disclosure of
indicators of audit quality are feasible,
require the PCAOB to monitor these
indicators.
A key issue in the public company audit
market is what drives competition for audit
clients and whether audit quality is the most
significant driver. Currently, there is minimal
publicly available information regarding
indicators of audit quality at individual
auditing firms. Consequently, it is difficult to
determine whether audit committees, who
ultimately select the auditor, and
management are focused and have the tools
that are useful in assessing audit quality that
would contribute to making the initial
auditor selection and subsequent auditor
retention evaluation processes more
informed and meaningful.156 In addition,
with the majority of public companies
currently putting shareholder ratification of
auditor selection to an annual vote,
shareholders may also lack audit quality
information important in making such a
ratification decision.157
The Committee believes that requiring
firms to disclose indicators of audit quality
may enhance not only the quality of audits
provided by such firms, but also the ability
of smaller auditing firms to compete with
larger auditing firms, auditor choice,
shareholder decision-making related to
ratification of auditor selection, and PCAOB
oversight of registered auditing firms.
The Committee recognizes the challenges
of developing and monitoring indicators of
audit quality, especially in light of the
complex factors driving the potential impact
on the incentives of market actors, and the
bankruptcy and emerged to continue its practice.
The hard assets of the firm are not significant: the
professionals and the clients are the lifeblood of the
registered firm. With any anticipation of
bankruptcy, these mobile assets are gone.’’).
156 See, e.g., New York Stock Exchange, Listed
Company Manual § 303A, which the SEC approved
on November 4, 2003, for the responsibilities of
exchange-listed companies’ audit committees.
157 Institutional Shareholder Services, U.S.
Corporate Governance Policy—2007 Updates 3
(2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
resulting effect on competitive dynamics
among auditors.158
The Committee has considered testimony
and comment letters 159 as well as other
studies and reports in developing this
recommendation. A possible framework for
PCAOB consideration is reviewing annual
auditing firm reports in other jurisdictions.
For example, one auditing firm’s United
Kingdom affiliate lists in its annual report
nine ‘‘key performance indicators, including
average headcount, staff turnover, diversity,
client satisfaction, audit and non-audit work,
proposal win rate, revenue, profit, and profit
per partner.’’ 160 The Financial Reporting
Council recently published a paper setting
out drivers of audit quality.161 In addition,
the PCAOB also could consider some of the
factors that auditing firms present to audit
committees, such as engagement team
composition, the nature and extent of firm
training programs, and the nature and reason
for client restatements.162
The Committee therefore recommends that
the PCAOB, in consultation with auditors,
investors, public companies, audit
committees, boards of directors, academics,
and others, determine the feasibility of
developing key indicators of audit quality
158 If the idea proves to be workable,
implementation could be a major undertaking for
the PCAOB. Developing meaningful quality
indicators, defining how they should be measured,
and rolling out the measurement process could take
significant PCAOB time and effort. Auditing firms,
public companies, investors, and academics would
all likely have valuable ideas as to approaches the
PCAOB could take. However the indicators were
devised, firms would have to build their internal
processes for measuring the audit quality indicators
and the PCAOB would have to develop procedures
and training to monitor those processes.
159 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Wayne Kolins, National
Director of Assurance and Chairman, BDO Seidman
LLP, 4), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Kolins120307.pdf (recommending the issuance of
regulatory guidance on qualitative factors to be used
to evaluate auditing firms); Record of Proceedings
(Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of Dennis M.
Nally, Chairman and Senior Partner,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 6), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Nally120307.pdf
(suggesting that disclosure of ‘‘ key elements that
drive audit quality would be a useful benefit to the
capital markets’’ and could include a ‘‘discussion
of the levels of partner and staff turnover, average
hours of professional training, risk management and
compliance measurements, and metrics related to
the quality of management and firm governance
processes’’); Anonymous Retired Big 4 partner,
Comment Letter Regarding Discussion Outline
(Nov. 2007) (recommending public disclosure of the
following audit quality drivers: (1) Average years of
experience of audit professionals, (2) ratio of
professional staff to audit partners, (3) chargeable
hours per audit professional, (4) professional
chargeable hours managed per audit partner, (5)
annual professional staff retention, and (6) average
annual training hours per audit professional).
160 See KPMG LLP, UK Annual Report 2007 46.
161 FRC Update 4.
162 Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Wayne Kolins, National Director of
Assurance and Chairman, BDO Seidman LLP, 2),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Kolins120307.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
and requiring auditing firms to publicly
disclose these indicators. Testimonies and
comment letters have suggested specific
audit quality indicators, such as the average
experience level of auditing firm staff on
individual engagements, the average ratio of
auditing firm professional staff to auditing
firm partners on individual engagements, and
annual staff retention. The Committee also
recommends that, if the proposal is feasible,
the PCAOB, through its inspection process,
should monitor these indicators.
Recommendation 4. Promote the
understanding of and compliance with
auditor independence requirements among
auditors, investors, public companies, audit
committees, and boards of directors, in order
to enhance investor confidence in the quality
of audit processes and audits.
The Committee considered testimony and
comment letters regarding the significance of
the independence of the public company
auditor—both in fact and appearance—to the
credibility of financial reporting, investor
protection, and the capital formation
process.163 The auditor is expected to offer
critical and objective judgment on the
financial matters under consideration, and
actual and perceived absence of conflicts is
critical to that expectation.
The Committee believes that auditors,
investors, public companies, and other
market participants must understand the
independence requirements and their
objectives, and that auditors must adopt a
mindset of skepticism when facing situations
that may compromise their independence. In
that regard, the Committee makes the
following recommendations:
(a) Compile the SEC and PCAOB
independence requirements into a single
document and make this document Web site
accessible. The American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and
states should clarify and prominently note
that differences exist between the SEC and
PCAOB standards (applicable to public
companies) and the AICPA and state
standards (applicable in all circumstances,
but subject to SEC and PCAOB standards, in
the case of public companies) and indicate,
at each place in their standards where
differences exist, that stricter SEC and
PCAOB independence requirements
applicable to public company auditors may
supersede or supplement the stated
requirements. This compilation should not
require rulemaking by either the SEC or the
PCAOB because it only calls for assembly
and compilation of existing rules.
In the United States, various oversight
bodies have authority to promulgate
163 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Dennis M. Nally, Chairman
and Senior Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
5) available at, https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Nally120307.pdf (‘‘Independence forms the bedrock
of credibility in the auditing profession, and is
essential to the firms’ primary function in the
capital markets.’’); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4,
2008) (Written Submission of Edward E. Nusbaum,
Chief Executive Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and
Chairman, Grant Thornton International Board of
Governors, 3), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
independence requirements, including the
SEC and PCAOB for public company
auditors, and the AICPA and states for public
and private company auditors.164 The
Committee recommends that the SEC and
PCAOB compile and publish their
independence requirements in a single
document and make this document easily
accessible on their Web sites. The Committee
recommends that the AICPA and states
clarify and prominently state that differences
exist between their standards and those of
the SEC and the PCAOB and indicate, at each
place in their standards where differences
exist, that additional SEC and PCAOB
independence requirements applicable to
public company auditors may supersede or
supplement the stated requirements.165
(b) Develop training materials to help foster
and maintain the application of healthy
professional skepticism with respect to issues
of independence and other conflicts among
public company auditors, and inspect
auditing firms, through the PCAOB
inspection process, for independence
training of partners and mid-career
professionals.
The Committee considered testimony and
commentary that, to comply with the
164 See, e.g., SEC Regulation S–X, Article 2, Rule
2–01—Qualifications of Accountants, 17 CFR
§ 210.2–01; SEC Financial Reporting Policies, Sec.
602.01—Interpretations Relating to Independence;
SEC Final Rule, Amendments to SEC Auditor
Independence Requirements ‘‘Strengthening the
Commission’s Requirements Regarding Auditor
Independence’’, SEC Rel. No 33–8183 (2003); SEC
Final Rule, Revision of the Commission’s Auditor
Independence Requirements, SEC Rel. No. 33–7919
(2001); PCAOB, Interim Independence Standards,
ET Sections 101 and 191; Independence Standards
Board, Independence Standards Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
and ISB Interpretations 99–01, 00–1, and 00–2;
PCAOB Bylaws and Rules, Section 3, Professional
Standards; AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, ET
Sections 100–102.
165 The Committee took note of concerns
expressed regarding independence issues from a
variety of perspectives. See, e.g., Andrew D. Bailey,
Jr., Professor of Accountancy—Emeritus, University
of Illinois, and Senior Policy Advisor, Grant
Thornton LLP, Comment Letter Regarding
Discussion Outline 9 (Jan. 30, 2008), available at
https://comments.treas.gov/_files/BAILEYCOMMEN
TSONTREASURYADVISORY
COMMITTEEOUTLINEFINALSUBMISSION
13008.doc (suggesting simplifying the current SEC
independence standards); Dana R. Hermanson,
Kennesaw State University, Comment Letter
Regarding Discussion Outline 1 (Oct. 4, 2007),
available at https://comments.treas.gov/_files/
HermansonStatement10407.pdf (stating that
consulting and auditing were incompatible and
posed a significant threat to the long-term
sustainability of the profession); Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
Dennis M. Nally, Chairman and Senior Partner,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 5), availabe at http
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/
acap/submissions/12032007/Nally120307.pdf
(‘‘The independence rules should be re-evaluated
periodically to examine whether the rules continue
to strike the right balance between cost burden and
benefit.’’); Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of James S. Turley, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Ernst & Young LLP, 5),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/12032007/Turley
120307.pdf (recommending consideration of
potential changes to aspects of independence rules).
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28207
detailed and complex166 requirements, some
auditors may be taking a ‘‘check the box’’
approach to compliance with independence
requirements, and losing focus on the critical
need to exercise independent judgment or
professional skepticism about whether the
substance of a potential conflict of interest
may compromise integrity or objectivity, or
create an appearance of doing so.167
The Committee recommends that auditing
firms develop appropriate independence
training materials for auditing firms,
especially partners and mid-career
professionals, that help to foster a healthy
professional skepticism with respect to issues
of independence that is objectively focused
and extends beyond a ‘‘check the box’’
mentality. The training materials should
focus on lessons learned and best practices
observed by the PCAOB in its inspection
process and the experience of other relevant
regulators as appropriate. To ensure the
implementation of this training on an overall
basis, the PCAOB should review this training
as part of its inspection program.
Recommendation 5. Adopt annual
shareholder ratification of public company
auditors by all public companies.
Although not statutorily required, the
majority of public companies in the United
States—nearly 95% of S&P 500 and 70%–
80% of smaller companies—put auditor
ratification to an annual shareholder vote.168
Even though ratification of a company’s
auditor is non-binding, the Committee
learned that corporate governance experts
consider this a best practice serving as a
‘‘check’’ on the audit committee.169 Pursuant
to Sarbanes-Oxley, audit committees of
exchange-listed companies must appoint,
compensate, and oversee the auditor.170 SEC
rules implementing Sarbanes-Oxley
specifically permit shareholder ratification of
auditor selection.171 Ratification allows
shareholders to voice a view on the audit
committee’s work, including the
reasonableness of audit fees and apparent
conflicts of interest.
The Committee believes shareholder
ratification of auditor selection through the
annual meeting and proxy process can
enhance the audit committee’s oversight to
ensure that the auditor is suitable for the
166 See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007)
(Written Submission of Michael P. Cangemi,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Financial
Executives International), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Cangemi120307.pdf;
Financial Executives International,
Recommendations to Address Complexity in
Financial Reporting (March 2007).
167 See. e.g., Consideration of Fraud in a Financial
Statement, Interim Auditing Standard AU 316,
Paragraph .13 (Pub. Company Accounting Oversight
Bd. 2002) (‘‘Professional skepticism is an attitude
that includes a questioning mind and a critical
assessment of audit evidence.’’).
168 Institutional Shareholder Services, ISS U.S.
Corporate Governance Policy—2007 Update 3 (Nov.
15, 2006).
169 Institutional Shareholder Services, Request for
Comment—Ratification of Auditors on the Ballot 1.
170 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j–1 (2002).
171 SEC, Final Rule: Standards Related to Listed
Audit Committees. Release No. 33–8220 (Apr. 9,
2003).
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28208
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
company’s size and financial reporting
needs.172 This may enhance competition in
the audit industry. Accordingly, the
Committee encourages such an approach as
a best practice for all public companies. The
Committee also urges exchange selfregulatory organizations to adopt such a
requirement as a listing standard. In addition,
to further enhance audit committee oversight
and auditor accountability, the Committee
recommends that disclosure in the company
proxy statement regarding shareholder
ratification include the name(s) of the senior
auditing partner(s) staffed on the
engagement.173
Recommendation 6. Enhance regulatory
collaboration and coordination between the
PCAOB and its foreign counterparts,
consistent with the PCAOB mission of
promoting quality audits of public companies
in the United States.
The globalization of the capital markets has
compelled regulatory coordination and
collaboration across jurisdictions. Regulators
of public company auditors are no exception,
as companies increasingly seek investor
capital outside their home jurisdictions and
the larger auditing firms create, expand, and,
in some audits, increasingly rely on global
networks of affiliates in order to provide
auditing and other services to companies
operating in multiple jurisdictions.174 The
Committee considered commentary regarding
the PCAOB’s regulatory role on a global
basis.175
172 See also FRC Update 5, 7 (recommending that
‘‘the FRC should amend the section of the Smith
Guidance dealing with communications with
shareholders to include a requirement for the
provision of information relevant to the auditor reselection decision,’’ and that ‘‘investor groups,
corporate representatives, firms and the FRC should
promote good practices for shareholder engagement
on auditor appointment and re-appointments’’).
173 As discussed above, the Committee also
believes that this ratification process would be
made more meaningful if accompanied by the
development and disclosure of key indicators of
audit quality.
174 See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Cynthia M. Fornelli,
Executive Director, Center for Audit Quality, 16),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli
020408.pdf (noting the ‘‘growing consensus that
regulators on every continent would be well served
by working more closely together in the interest of
improving worldwide audit quality’’); PCAOB Press
Release, PCAOB Meets with Asian Counterparts to
Discuss Cooperation on Auditor Oversight (Mar. 23,
2007), available at https://www.pcaobus.org/News_
and_Events/News/2007/03–23.aspx (’’The PCAOB
strongly believes that dialogue and cooperation
among auditor regulators are critical to every
regulator’s ability to meet the challenges that come
with the increasingly complicated and global
capital markets.’’).
175 See, e.g., PCAOB Briefing Paper, Oversight of
Non-U.S. Public Accounting Firms (Oct. 28, 2003);
PCAOB Final Rules Relating to the Oversight of
Non-U.S. Public Accounting Firms, PCAOB Rel. No.
2004–005 (June 9, 2004); Request for Public
Comment on Proposed Policy Statement: Guidance
Regarding Implementation of PCAOB Rule 4012,
PCAOB Rel. No. 2007–001 (Dec. 5, 2007); PCAOB
Chairman Mark Olson and EU Commissioner
Charlie McCreevy Meet to Discuss Furthering
Cooperation in the Oversight of Audit Firms,
PCAOB Press Rel. (March 6, 2007); PCAOB Meets
with Asian Counterparts to Discuss Cooperation on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
22:36 May 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The PCAOB has the statutory
responsibility for ensuring quality audits of
public companies. In a world of global
business operations and globalized capital
markets, the PCAOB benefits from
cooperation with foreign auditing firm
regulators (many created and modeled after
the PCAOB) to accomplish its inspections of
registered foreign auditing firms, including
firms that are members of global auditing
firm networks.
In May 2007, the PCAOB hosted its first
International Auditor Regulatory Institute
where representatives from more than 40
jurisdictions gathered to learn more about
PCAOB operations. In 2006, the PCAOB
formally joined the International Forum of
Independent Audit Regulators, created to
encourage regulatory collaboration and
sharing of regulatory knowledge and
experience.
The Committee believes that these types of
global regulatory coordination and
cooperation are important elements in
making sure public company auditing firms
of all sizes are contributing effectively to
audit quality. The Committee strongly
supports the efforts of the PCAOB to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of its
programs by communicating with foreign
regulators and participating in global
regulatory bodies. The Committee urges the
PCAOB and its foreign counterparts to
continue to improve regulatory cooperation
and coordination on a global basis.
Other Issues Under Consideration
The Committee is also considering and
debating a variety of other issues. Further
elaboration on these issues will be included
in subsequent drafts of this Report.
VIII. Separate Statements
[The contents of Separate Statements to be
included in subsequent drafts of this Report.]
[FR Doc. E8–10818 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–25–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Open Meeting of the Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession
Office of the Undersecretary for
Domestic Finance, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of the
Treasury’s Advisory Committee on the
Auditing Profession will convene a
meeting on June 3, 2008, in the Cash
Room of the Main Department Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, beginning at 10 a.m.
Auditor Oversight, PCAOB Press Rel. (Mar. 23,
2007); Establishment of the International Forum of
Independent Audit Regulators, Haut Conseil du
Commissariat aux Comptes Press Rel. (Sep. 15,
2006); PCAOB Enters into Cooperative Arrangement
with the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission, PCAOB Press Rel. (July 16, 2007);
Board Establishes Standing Advisory Group,
PCAOB Press Rel. (Apr. 15, 2004).
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Eastern Time. The meeting will be open
to the public.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 10 a.m.
Eastern Time.
ADDRESSES: The Advisory Committee
will convene a meeting in the Cash
Room of the Main Department Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The public is invited
to submit written statements with the
Advisory Committee by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Statements
• Use the Department’s Internet
submission form (https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/
comments); or
Paper Statements
• Send paper statements in triplicate
to Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession, Office of Financial
Institutions Policy, Room 1418,
Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department will post
all statements on its Web site (https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domesticfinance/acap/comments) without
change, including any business or
personal information provided such as
names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or
telephone numbers. The Department
will also make such statements available
for public inspection and copying in the
Department’s Library, Room 1428, Main
Department Building, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You can
make an appointment to inspect
statements by telephoning (202) 622–
0990. All statements, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, received are part of the public
record and subject to public disclosure.
You should submit only information
that you wish to make available
publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen E. Jaconi, Senior Policy Advisor
to the Under Secretary for Domestic
Finance, Department of the Treasury,
Main Department Building, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 927–
6618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App. 2 and the regulations
thereunder, David G. Nason, Designated
Federal Officer of the Advisory
Committee, has ordered publication of
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 95 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28190-28208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10818]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Draft Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession
AGENCY: Office of the Undersecretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession is
publishing a Draft Report and soliciting public comment.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before June 13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to the Advisory Committee by any
of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Department's Internet submission form (https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/comments); or
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Advisory Committee on
the Auditing Profession, Office of Financial Institutions Policy, Room
1418, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
In general, the Department will post all comments on its Web site
(https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/comments) without
change, including any business or personal information provided such as
names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers. The
Department will also make such comments available for public inspection
and copying in the Department's Library, Room 1428, Main Department
Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by telephoning
(202) 622-0990. All comments, including attachments and other
supporting materials, received are part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen E. Jaconi, Senior Policy
Advisor to the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Department of the
Treasury, Main Department Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 927-6618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the request of the two Co-Chairs of the
Department of the Treasury's Advisory Committee on the Auditing
Profession, the Department is publishing this notice soliciting public
comment on the Advisory Committee's Draft Report. The text of this
Draft Report is found in the appendix to this notice and may be found
on the Web page of the Advisory Committee at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/index.shtml. The appendices to the Draft
Report are not included in this notice, but may be found on the Web
page of the Advisory Committee at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/index.shtml. The Draft Report contains the
Advisory Committee's developed proposals on improving the
sustainability of a strong and vibrant public company auditing
profession. All interested parties are invited to submit their comments
in the manner described above.
Dated: May 8, 2008.
Taiya Smith,
Executive Secretary.
Appendix: Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, Draft Report--
May 5, 2008, The Department of the Treasury
Draft Report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to
the U.S. Department of the Treasury
Table of Contents
I. Transmittal Letter [Placeholder]
II. Executive Summary [Placeholder]
III. Committee History
IV. Background [Placeholder]
V. Human Capital
VI. Firm Structure and Finances
VII. Concentration and Competition
VIII. Separate Statements [Placeholder]
IX. Appendices
A. Official Notice of Establishment of Committee
B. Committee Charter
C. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Remarks at the
Economic Club of New York, New York, NY on Capital Market
Competitiveness (Nov. 20, 2006)
D. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Opening Remarks at
the Treasury Department's Capital Markets Competitiveness Conference
at Georgetown University (Mar. 13, 2007)
E. Paulson Announces First Stage of Capital Markets Action Plan,
Treasury Press Release No. HP-408 (May 17, 2007)
F. Paulson: Financial Reporting Vital to U.S. Market Integrity,
Strong Economy, Treasury Press Release No. HP-407 (May 17, 2008)
G. Paulson Announces Auditing Committee Members To Make
Recommendations for a More Sustainable, Transparent Industry,
Treasury Press Release No. HP-585 (Oct. 2, 2007)
H. Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Robert K. Steel, Welcome
and
[[Page 28191]]
Introductory Remarks Before the Initial Meeting of the Department of
the Treasury's Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession,
Treasury Press Release No. HP-610 (Oct. 15, 2007)
I. Committee By-Laws
J. List of Witnesses
K. List of Committee Members, Observers, and Staff
L. Working Discussion Outline
M. Working Bibliography
I. Transmittal Letter
Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession
[July 2008].
The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Dear Secretary Paulson: On behalf of the Department's Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession, we are pleased to submit our
Final Report.
[Contents of letter to be included in Final Report.]
Respectfully Submitted on behalf of the Committee,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Levitt, Jr.,
Committee Co-Chair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald T. Nicolaisen,
Committee Co-Chair.
Enclosure.
cc: Undersecretary for Domestic Finance
Robert K. Steel.
II. Executive Summary
[Contents of Executive Summary to be included in subsequent
drafts of this Report.]
III. Committee History
On November 20, 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M.
Paulson, Jr., delivered a speech on the competitiveness of the U.S.
capital markets, highlighting the need for a sustainable auditing
profession.\1\ In March 2007, Secretary Paulson hosted a conference
at Georgetown University with investors, current and former policy
makers, and market participants to discuss issues impacting the
competitiveness of the U.S. capital markets, including the
sustainability of the auditing profession.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Remarks on the
Competitiveness of U.S. Capital Markets at the Economic Club of New
York (Nov. 20, 2006), in Press Release No. HP-174, U.S. Dep't of
Treas. (Nov. 20, 2006) (included as Appendix C).
\2\ Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Opening Remarks at
Treasury's Capital Markets Competitiveness Conference at Georgetown
University (Mar. 13, 2007), in Press Release No. HP-306, U.S. Dep't
of Treas. (Mar. 13, 2007) (included as Appendix D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 2007, Secretary Paulson announced the Department of
the Treasury's (the Department) intent to establish the Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession (the Committee) to consider and
develop recommendations relating to the sustainability of the
auditing profession.\3\ At the same time, Secretary Paulson
announced that he had asked Arthur Levitt, Jr. and Donald T.
Nicolaisen to serve as Co-Chairs of the Committee. The Department
published the official notice of establishment and requested
nominations for membership on the Committee in the Federal Register
on June 18, 2007.\4\ Secretary Paulson announced the Committee's
membership on October 2, 2007, with members drawn from a wide range
of professions, backgrounds and experiences.\5\ The Department filed
the Committee's Charter with the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Senate Committee on Finance, the
House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on
Ways and Means on July 3, 2007.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Treas., Paulson Announces First
Stage of Capital Markets Action Plan (May 17, 2007) (included as
Appendix E); Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Treas., Paulson: Financial
Reporting Vital to U.S. Market Integrity, Strong Economy (May 17,
2008) (included as Appendix F).
\4\ Notice of Intent to Establish; Request for Nominations, 72
FR 33560 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. June 18, 2007) (included as Appendix
A).
\5\ Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Treas., Paulson Announces
Auditing Committee Members to Make Recommendations for a More
Sustainable, Transparent Industry (Oct. 2, 2007) (included as
Appendix G). This press release describes the diverse backgrounds of
the Committee members. For a list of Members, Observers, and Staff,
see Appendix K.
\6\ See Committee Charter (included as Appendix B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Activities
The Committee held its initial meeting on October 15, 2007 in
Washington, DC.\7\ Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Robert K.
Steel welcomed the Committee members and provided introductory
remarks.\8\ Also on October 15, 2007, the Committee adopted its by-
laws \9\ and considered a Working Discussion Outline to be published
for public comment.\10\ The Working Discussion Outline identified in
general terms issues for the Committee's consideration. A Working
Bibliography, updated intermittently throughout the course of the
Committee's deliberations, provided the members with articles,
reports, studies, and other written materials relating to the
auditing profession.\11\ All full Committee meetings were open to
the public and conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.\12\ The meetings of the full
Committee were also Web or audio cast over the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Record of Proceedings of this and subsequent meetings of
the Committee are available on the Department's Web site at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance//acap/press.shtml. See Record
of Proceedings, Meeting of the Committee (Oct. 15, 2007, Dec. 3,
2007, Feb. 4, 2008, Mar. 13, 2008, Apr. 1, 2008, and [--])
[hereinafter Record of Proceedings (with appropriate date)] (on file
in the Department's Library, Room 1428), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/press.shtml.
\8\ Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Robert K. Steel,
Welcome and Introductory Remarks Before the Initial Meeting of the
Treasury Department's Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession
(Oct. 15, 2007), in Press Release No. HP-610, U.S. Dep't of Treas.
(Oct. 15, 2007) (included as Appendix H).
\9\ The Committee By-Laws are included as Appendix I.
\10\ The Working Discussion Outline is included as Appendix L.
\11\ The Working Bibliography is included as Appendix M. The
Working Bibliography was subsequently updated in December 2007 and
February 2008.
\12\ 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee held its second meeting on December 3, 2007 in
Washington, DC. The agenda for this meeting consisted of hearing
oral statements from witnesses and considering written submissions
that those witnesses had filed with the Committee. The oral
statements and written submissions focused on the issues impacting
the sustainability of the auditing profession, including issues
mentioned in the Working Discussion Outline. Nineteen witnesses
testified at this meeting.\13\ The Committee held a subsequent
meeting on February 4, 2008 in Los Angeles, California at the
University of Southern California. The agenda for this meeting
consisted of hearing oral statements from witnesses and considering
written submissions that those witnesses had filed with the
Committee. The oral statements and written submissions focused on
the issues impacting the sustainability of the auditing profession,
including issues mentioned in the Working Discussion Outline.
Seventeen witnesses testified at this meeting.\14\ The Committee
held additional meetings on March 13, 2008, April 1, 2008, and [--].
All were face-to-face meetings held at the Department in Washington,
DC, except for February 4, 2008, which was held in Los Angeles,
California, and the meetings on April 1, 2008, and [--], which were
telephonic meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Appendix J contains a list of witnesses who testified
before the Committee.
\14\ Appendix J contains a list of witnesses who testified
before the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee, through the Department, published [--] releases
in the Federal Register formally seeking public comment on issues
under consideration. On October 31, 2007, the Committee published a
release seeking comment on the Working Discussion Outline,\15\ in
response to which we received seventeen written submissions. In
addition, the Department announced each meeting of the Committee in
the Federal Register, and in each announcement notice included an
invitation to submit written statements to be considered in
connection with the meeting.\16\ In response to these meeting
notices, the Committee received [--] written submissions. In total,
the Committee received [--] written submissions in response to
Federal Register releases.\17\ All of the submissions made to the
[[Page 28192]]
Committee will be archived and available to the public through the
Department's Library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Request for Comments, 72 FR 61709 (U.S. Dep't of Treas.
Oct. 31, 2007).
\16\ Notice of Meeting, 72 FR 55272 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Sept.
28, 2007); Notice of Meeting, 72 FR 64283 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Nov.
15, 2007); Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 2981 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Jan.
16, 2008); Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 10511 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Feb.
27, 2008); Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 13070 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Mar.
11, 2008); Notice of Meeting, 73 FR 21016 (U.S. Dep't of Treas. Apr.
17, 2008).
\17\ All of the written submissions made to the Committee are
available in the Department's Library, Room 1428 and on the
Department's Committee's Web page at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/press.shtml. To avoid duplicative material in
footnotes, citations to the written submissions made to the
Committee in this Final Report do not reference the Department's
Library, Room 1428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to work carried out by the full Committee, fact
finding and deliberations also took place within three Subcommittees
appointed by the Co-Chairs. The Subcommittees were organized
according to their principal areas of focus: Human Capital, Firm
Structure and Finances, and Concentration and Competition.\18\ Each
of the Subcommittees prepared recommendations for consideration by
the full Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For a list of members and their Subcommittee assignments,
see Appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Background
[Contents of Background to be included in subsequent drafts of
this Report.]
V. Human Capital
The Committee devoted considerable time and effort surveying the
human capital issues impacting the auditing profession, including
education, licensing, recruitment, retention, and training of
accounting and auditing professionals. The charter of the Committee
charged its members with developing recommendations relating to the
sustainability of the public company auditing profession. Likewise,
the Committee directs the following recommendations and related
commentary to those practicing public company auditing. However, the
Committee recognizes that several of its recommendations regarding
human capital matters would have impact beyond the public company
auditing profession, impacting the accounting profession as a whole.
The Committee views the accelerating pace of change in the global
corporate environment and capital markets and the increasing
complexity of business transactions and financial reporting as among
the most significant challenges facing the profession as well as
financial statement issuers and investors. These are directly
impacted by human capital issues. To ensure its viability and
resilience and its ability to meet the needs of investors, the
public company auditing profession needs to continue to attract and
develop professionals at all levels who are prepared to perform high
quality audits in this dynamic environment. It is essential that
these professionals be educated and trained to review, judge, and
question all accounting and auditing matters with skepticism and a
critical perspective. The recommendations presented below reflect
these needs.
After receiving testimony from witnesses and from comment
letters, the Committee identified specific areas where the Committee
believed it could develop recommendations to be implemented in the
relatively short term to enhance the sustainability of the auditing
profession. These specific areas include accounting curricula,
accounting faculty, minority representation and retention, and
development and maintenance of human capital data. The Committee has
also developed a recommendation to study the possible future of
higher accounting education's institutional structure.
The Committee recommends that regulators, the auditing
profession, educators, educational institutions, accrediting
agencies, and other bodies, as applicable, effectuate the following:
Recommendation 1. Implement market-driven, dynamic curricula and
content for accounting students that continuously evolve to meet the
needs of the auditing profession and help prepare new entrants to
the profession to perform high quality audits.
The Committee considered the views of all witnesses who provided
input regarding accounting curricula at educational
institutions.\19\ The Committee believes that the accounting
curricula in higher education are critical to ensuring individuals
have the necessary knowledge, mindset, skills, and abilities to
perform quality public company audits. In order to graduate from an
educational institution with an accounting degree, students must
have completed a certain number of hours in accounting and business
courses. Accounting curricula typically include courses in auditing,
financial accounting, cost accounting and U.S. federal income
taxation. Business curricula typically include courses in ethics,
information systems and controls, finance, economics, management,
marketing, oral and written communication, statistics, and U.S.
business law.\20\ Since the 1950s, several private sector groups
have studied and recommended changes to the accounting
curricula,\21\ but notwithstanding these pleas for reform, curricula
are characteristically slow to change.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Joseph V. Carcello, Director of Research, Corporate
Governance, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 8), available at
https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
12032007/Carcello120307.pdf (noting the market's expectations that
university accounting curricula will expose students to recent
financial reporting developments, such as international financial
reporting standards and eXtensible Business Reporting Language);
Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of Cynthia
Fornelli, Executive Director, Center for Audit Quality, 3) available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf (stating the need to ``[d]edicate funds
and people to work with accounting professors to ensure that the
curriculum is keeping pace with developments in business
transactions, international economics and financial reporting'' and
specifying the need to focus on ethical standards and international
accounting and auditing standards); Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3,
2007) (Written Submission of Dennis Nally, Chairman and Senior
Partner, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 4), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Nally120307.pdf (stating the need to ``[m]odernize and enhance the
university accounting curriculum, which should include consideration
of other global curriculum models to increase knowledge of
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), finance and
economics, and process controls'').
\20\ Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of Accountancy, Arizona State
University, 13), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/02042008/Reckers020408.pdf (commenting that
business students typically take two sophomore-level introductory
accounting classes and accounting majors take six additional
accounting courses in their final two years of schooling).
\21\ See e.g., Franklin Pierson, et al., The Education of
American Businessmen (1959) (noting that the main goal of a business
education should be the development of an individual with broad
training in both the humanities and principles of business); Robert
A. Gordon and James E. Howell, Higher Education for Business (1959)
(suggesting that accounting curriculum abandon its emphasis on
financial accounting and auditing while emphasizing humanities);
Robert H. Roy and James H. MacNeill, Horizons for a Profession
(1967) (emphasizing the importance of a humanities background for
accountants and recommending accounting graduate study); American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Committee on Education
and Experience Requirements for CPAs, Report of the Committee on
Education and Experience Requirements for CPAs (1969) (recommending
a five-year education requirement for accounting students); American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Education Requirements
for Entry into the Accounting Profession: A Statement of AICPA
Policies (1978) (recommending a change from five years to 150
semester-hours and recommending that a graduate degree requirement
at the conclusion of the 150-hours should be explicitly stated);
American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure,
Content, and Scope of Accounting Education, Future Accounting
Education: Preparing for the Expanding Profession, Issues in
Accounting Education (Spring 1986) (examining accounting education
and accounting practice since 1925 and concluding that since 1925,
the profession has changed while accounting education has not
changed); American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
Education Requirements for Entry into the Accounting Profession: A
Statement of AICPA Policies, Second Edition, Revised (1988)
(requiring that at least 150 semester hours are needed to obtain a
CPA license); Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in
the Accounting Profession (1989) (noting that graduates entering
public accounting need to have greater interpersonal, communication,
and thinking skills as well as greater business knowledge); and
Accounting Education Change Commission, Objectives of Education for
Accountants: Position Statement Number One, Issues in Accounting
Education (Fall 1990a) (awarding grants to schools as a catalyst for
curricula changes in accounting programs).
\22\ Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans Distinguished Professor, and Head,
Department of Accountancy, University of Illinois, 14-15), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/
12032007/Solomon120307.pdf (lamenting the slow pace of change in
accounting curricula and education).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, the Committee makes the following
recommendations:
(a) Regularly update the accounting certification examinations
to reflect changes in the accounting profession, its relevant
professional and ethical standards, and the skills and knowledge
required to serve increasingly global capital markets.
Accounting and auditing professionals commonly complete the
requirements of professional examinations in order to comply with
legal or professional association requirements. To become licensed
at the state level as a certified public accountant, an individual
must, among other things, pass the Uniform CPA Examination.
Professional examinations, such as the Uniform CPA
[[Page 28193]]
Examination, influence the content of the technical, ethical, and
professional materials comprising the accounting curricula.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Gary Sundem, The Accounting Education Change Commission:
Its History and Impact Chapter 6 (1999), available at https://
aaahq.org/AECC/history/index.htm (``[T]he CPA examination has
certainly had a major influence on the accounting curriculum and on
other aspects of accounting programs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that evolution of professional
examination content serves as an important catalyst for curricular
changes to reflect the dynamism and complexity of auditing public
companies in global capital markets. The American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) already regularly analyzes and
updates its examination content, through practice content analysis
and in conjunction with the AICPA Board of Examiners, which
comprises members from the profession and state boards of
accountancy. The Committee recommends that such changes remain a
focus to ensure that examination content reflects in a timely manner
important ongoing market developments and investor needs, such as
the increasing use of international financial reporting standards
(IFRS), expanded fair value measurement and reporting, increasingly
complex transactions, new Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB) auditing and professional standards,\24\ risk-based business
judgment, and technological innovations in financial reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See e.g., An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting That Is Integrated with An Audit of Financial Statements,
Auditing Standard No. 5 (Pub. Company Accounting Oversight Bd.
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Committee believes that professional \25\ and
ethical standards \26\ and subject matter relating to their
application are an essential component of the accounting curricula
and accordingly should be reflected in the professional examinations
and throughout business and accounting coursework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See PCAOB Standards and Related Rules, available at https://
www.pcaobus.org/Standards/Standards_and_Related_Rules/index.aspx.
\26\ See PCAOB Interim Ethics Standards, availabe at https://
www.pcaobus.org/Standards/Interim_Standards/Ethics/index.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Committee recommends that the market developments
outlined in this section be reflected in professional examination
content as soon as practicable, but not later than 2011. In
addition, the Committee recommends that new evolving examination
content be widely and promptly communicated to college and
university faculty and administrators so that corresponding
curricular changes in educational institutions can continually occur
on a timely basis.
(b) Reflect real world changes in the business environment more
rapidly in teaching materials.
Students are expected to use a variety of sources, such as
textbooks and online materials, to learn. Such materials are an
important element of higher education. The Committee learned that
these commercial materials are generally conservatively managed and
follow rather than lead recent market developments.\27\ Because
developing accounting materials involves a significant investment of
time and resources, commercial content providers carefully consider
the potential risks and rewards before publishing new materials,
even where a more prompt response to new developments might be
beneficial to students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Subcommittee on Human Capital Record of Proceedings (Jan.
16, 2008) (Oral Remarks of Bruce K. Behn, President, Federation of
Schools of Accountancy, and Ergen Professor of Business, Department
of Accounting and Information Management, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that accounting educational materials can
contribute to inducing curricular changes that reflect the dynamism
and complexity of the global capital markets and that commercial
content providers should recognize the importance of capturing
recent developments in their published materials. Specifically, the
Committee recommends that organizations, such as the AICPA and the
American Accounting Association (AAA), meet with commercial content
providers and encourage them to update their materials promptly to
reflect recent developments such as the increasing use of IFRS, new
PCAOB auditing and professional standards, risk-based business
judgment and expanded fair value reporting, as well as technological
developments in financial reporting and auditing such as eXtensible
Business Reporting Language (XBRL).
Further, in order to ensure access to such materials, the
Committee recommends that authoritative bodies and agencies should
be encouraged to provide low-cost, affordable access to digitized
searchable authoritative literature and materials, such as Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) codification and eIFRS, to
students and faculty members. Moreover, since the content of
professional examinations, such as the Uniform CPA Examination, is
based upon research using digitized materials, students need to have
access to, among other things, searchable accounting standards.\28\
The Committee believes that low-cost affordable access to such
primary materials would thus enhance student learning and
performance and technical research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of Accountancy,
Arizona State University, 14), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/Reckers020408.pdf
(affirming the need for student access to digitized searchable
accounting and auditing materials).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Require that schools build into accounting curricula current
market developments.
A common theme of our first set of recommendations is that
accounting curricula should reflect recent developments, including
globalization and evolving market factors. As a further catalyst to
curricula development and evolution by educational institutions, the
Committee recommends ongoing attention to responsiveness to recent
developments by the bodies that accredit educational institutions.
Accrediting agencies review institutions of higher education and
their programs and establish that overall resources and strategies
are conformed to the mission of the institutions. For example, the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and
the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)
accredit business administration and accounting programs. Since
1919, the AACSB has accredited business administration programs and,
since 1980, accounting programs offering undergraduate and graduate
degrees. The AACSB has accredited over 450 U.S. business programs
and over 150 U.S. accounting programs. Since 1988, the ACBSP has
accredited business programs offering associate, baccalaureate and
graduate degrees. As of February 2008, over 400 educational
institutions have achieved ACBSP accreditation. The accreditation
standards at both accrediting agencies relate to, among other
things, curricula, program and faculty resources, and faculty
development.
The Committee believes that the accreditation process and
appropriate accreditation standards can contribute to curricular
changes. In particular, accreditation standards that embody
curricular requirements to reflect the dynamism and complexity of
the global capital markets and that evolve to keep pace in the
future can be helpful in maintaining and advancing the quality of
accounting curricula. The AACSB has emphasized in its accreditation
standards that accounting curricula should reflect recent market
developments. For example, educational institutions must include in
their curricula international accounting issues in order to receive
AACSB accreditation. The Committee supports the accrediting
agencies' efforts to continually develop standards specifically
emphasizing the need to update accounting programs.
Recommendation 2. Improve the representation and retention of
minorities in the auditing profession so as to enrich the pool of
human capital in the profession.
The auditing profession presents challenging and rewarding
opportunities for those who pursue a career in auditing and the
profession actively recruits talent from all backgrounds. Yet, the
Committee was concerned by what it heard from individuals with
various backgrounds about minority representation and retention in
the auditing profession.\29\ In 2004, minorities accounted for 23%
of bachelor's degrees awarded in accounting, 21% of master's
graduate degrees awarded in accounting, and 38% of doctoral
[[Page 28194]]
degrees awarded in accounting-related studies.\30\ In 2004, African
Americans represented 1% of all CPAs, Hispanic/Latino, 3%, and
Asian/Pacific Islander, 4%.\31\ African Americans accounted for 5.4%
of new hires in 2007 in the largest six accounting firms, Hispanics,
4.6%, and Asians, 21.3%.\32\ In 2007, 1.0% of the partners in the
six largest accounting firms were African American, 1.6% were
Hispanic/Latino, 3.4% were Asian, and less than 1.0% were Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander or American Indian/Alaska Native,
aggregating less than 7% of the total partners.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Ira Solomon, R.C. Evans Distinguished Professor, and
Head, Department of Accountancy, University of Illinois, 13),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/12032007/Solomon120307.pdf; Record of Proceedings (Dec.
3, 2007) (Questions for the Record of George S. Willie, Managing
Partner, Bert Smith & Co., 2 (Jan. 30, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Willie120307.pdf; Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Julie K. Wood, Chief People Officer, Crowe Chizek and
Company LLC, 2) available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Wood120307.pdf.
\30\ Beatrice Sanders, and Leticia B. Romeo, The Supply of
Accounting Graduates and the Demand for Public Accounting Recruits--
2005: For Academic Year 2003-2004 10 (2005), available at https://
ceae.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/11715FC6-F0A7-4AD6-8D28-6285CBE77315/0/
Supply_DemandReport_2005.pdf.
\31\ Beatrice Sanders, and Leticia B. Romeo, The Supply of
Accounting Graduates and the Demand for Public Accounting Recruits--
2005: For Academic Year 2003-2004 1 (2005), available at https://
ceae.aicpa.org/NR/rdonlyres/11715FC6-F0A7-4AD6-8D28-6285CBE77315/0/
Supply_DemandReport_2005.pdf.
\32\ Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major Public
Company Audit Firms to the Department of the Treasury Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession 59 (Jan. 23, 2008).
\33\ Center For Audit Quality, Report of the Major Public
Company Audit Firms to the Department of the Treasury Advisory
Committee on the Auditing Profession 60 (Jan. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recognizes that important groups within the
minority population are significantly under-represented in the
accounting and auditing profession, especially at senior levels, and
this under-representation of minorities in the profession is
unacceptable from both a societal and business perspective. As the
demographics of the global economy continue to expand ethnic
diversity, it is imperative that the profession also reflect these
changes. The auditing profession's historic role in performing
audits in an increasingly diverse global setting and in establishing
investor trust cannot be maintained unless the profession itself is
viewed as open and representative. To ensure the continued health
and vibrancy of the profession, it is imperative that all
participants in the financial, investor, educator, and auditor
community adopt and implement policies, programs, practices, and
curricula designed to attract and retain minorities. In order for
minority participation in the accounting and auditing profession to
grow and sustain itself, minority recruitment and retention needs to
be a multi-faceted, multi-year effort, implemented and championed by
community leaders, families, and most importantly business and
academic leaders who educate, recruit, employ, and rely on
accountants and auditors.
In this regard, the Committee recognizes the importance of
setting goals and measuring progress against these goals and thus
makes the following recommendations:
(a) Recruit minorities into the auditing profession from other
disciplines and careers.
The Committee heard from witnesses that the auditing profession
has ``fallen short'' on its minority recruitment goals.\34\
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that auditing firms actively
market to and recruit from minority non-accounting graduate
populations, both at the entry and experienced hire level, utilizing
cooperative efforts by academics and firm-based training programs to
assist in this process. Generally, auditing firms hire individuals
for the audit practice who are qualified to sit for the Uniform CPA
Examination.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of Julie K. Wood, Chief People Officer, Crowe Chizek and
Company LLC, 2), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Wood120307.pdf (admitting an
auditing firm had not met its goals in minority recruitment).
\35\ See Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for the
Record of James S. Turley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young LLP, 4 (Feb. 1, 2008)), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/QFRs-12-3-07.pdf (noting
that since 1997, Ernst & Young LLP has typically hired individuals
qualified to sit for the Uniform CPA Examination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Committee recommends that auditing firms expand
their recruitment initiatives at historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs), and explore the use of proprietary schools as
another way to recruit minorities into the profession. Currently
over 100 educational institutions established before 1964 to serve
the African American community are designated as HBCUs and over
fifty of these HBCUs maintain accounting programs. Approximately
290,000 students are enrolled in HBCUs \36\ and HBCUs enroll 14% of
all African American students in higher education.\37\ Twenty-seven
HBCUs have one or more of the six largest accounting firms
recruiting professional staff on their campus.\38\ Both the number
of these schools visited by the largest firms and the number of
firms recruiting at these schools should increase. Proprietary
schools are for-profit businesses that teach vocational or
occupational skills and there are over 2,000 proprietary schools in
the United States.\39\ In 2005, these schools enrolled over 1
million students: African Americans accounted for 23% of these
students, Hispanics, 13%, and Asian/Pacific Islander, 4%.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Stephen Provasnik and Linda L. Shafer, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, 1976 to 2001 2 (NCES 2004-062), available
at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004062.pdf.
\37\ White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, available at https://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/
whhbcu/edlite-index.html.
\38\ Center For Audit Quality, Supplement to Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of the Treasury
Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession 1 (Mar. 5, 2008).
\39\ Thomas D. Snyder, Sally A. Dillow, and Charlene M. Hoffman,
Digest of Education Statistics 2007 Table 5 (NCES 2008-022),
available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf.
\40\ Thomas D. Snyder, Sally A. Dillow, and Charlene M. Hoffman,
Digest of Education Statistics 2007 Table 220 (NCES 2008-022),
available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Emphasize the role of community colleges in the recruitment
of minorities into the auditing profession.
Community colleges are a vital part of the postsecondary
education system. They provide open access to post-secondary
education, preparing students for transfer to four-year
institutions, providing workforce development and skills training,
and offering non-credit programs. Moreover, as the cost of higher
education continues its upward climb, more and more high-achieving
students are beginning their post-secondary study through the
community college system.
As of January 2008, approximately 11.5 million students were
enrolled in the 1,200 community colleges in the United States:
African Americans accounted for 13% of these students, Hispanics,
15%, and Asian/Pacific Islander, 6%.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ American Association of Community Colleges, available at
https://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1992, the Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC), created in the late 1980s by the academic community to
examine potential changes to accounting education, recognized the
importance of two-year colleges in accounting education. The AECC
noted that over half of all students taking their first course in
accounting do so at two-year colleges and that approximately one-
fourth of the students entering the accounting profession take their
initial accounting coursework at two-year colleges. The AECC called
for ``greater recognition within the academic and professional
communities of the efforts and importance of two-year accounting
programs.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Accounting Education Change Commission, Issues Statement
Number 3: The Importance of Two-Year Colleges for Accounting
Education (Aug. 1992) available at https://aaahq.org/aecc/
PositionsandIssues/issues3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also heard from witnesses emphasizing the need to
expand minority recruitment initiatives at community colleges.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Gilbert R. Vasquez, Managing Partner, Vasquez & Company LLP, 4),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Vasquez02042008.pdf (noting that auditing firms
overlook community colleges where minorities, and specifically
Latinos, represent a large student population); Record of
Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for the Record of George S.
Willie, Managing Partner, Bert Smith & Co., 2 (Jan. 30, 2008)),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
QFRs-12-3-07.pdf (recommending that the auditing profession increase
it visibility at community colleges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that more attention to community colleges
may provide, in addition to an increase in the overall supply of
students, another avenue for minorities to become familiar with and
attracted to the auditing profession. Currently none of the largest
auditing firms recruit at community colleges because ``individuals
who only have associate degrees typically will not have sufficient
qualifications to satisfy state licensing requirements.'' \44\ The
Committee recommends that accreditation of two-year college
accounting programs at
[[Page 28195]]
community colleges be explored and implemented when viable, so that
these programs can be relied upon as one of the requisite steps
toward fulfilling undergraduate educational requirements. Further,
the Committee recommends that auditing firms and educational
institutions at all levels support and cooperate in building strong
fundamental academic accounting programs at community colleges,
including providing internships or financial support for students
who begin their studies in two-year programs and may be seeking
careers in the auditing profession. The Committee also recommends
that auditing firms and four-year colleges and universities and
their faculty focus on outreach to community college students in
order to support students' transition from community colleges to
four-year educational institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Center For Audit Quality, Supplement to Report of the Major
Public Company Audit Firms to the Department of the Treasury
Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession 1 (Mar. 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Emphasize the utility and effectiveness of cross-sabbaticals
and internships with faculty and students at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.
As discussed above, African Americans are significantly under-
represented in the auditing profession.
The Committee recommends encouraging a concerted effort to
increase the focus upon HBCUs in order to raise the number of
African Americans in the auditing profession and urging the HBCUs,
auditing firms, corporations, federal and state governments, and
other entities to emphasize the use of cross-sabbaticals. Cross-
sabbaticals are interactive relationships where faculty and seasoned
professionals are regularly represented in the practice and academic
environments through exchanges. Evidence suggests that such
exchanges can be beneficial, and continued development of such
exchanges is expected to provide substantial benefits for all
parties.\45\ Cross-sabbaticals present an opportunity for
``reflective thinking'' for seasoned professionals.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director, Center for Audit
Quality, 2), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/02042008/Fornelli020408.pdf (recommending
encouraging sabbaticals, internships, and fellowship opportunities,
structured to give faculty opportunities to conduct research for
promotion and tenure); Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of Phillip M.J. Reckers, Professor of Accountancy, Arizona
State University, 68), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/agendas/minutes-2-4-08.pdf (stating that
sabbaticals deliver professors ``a wealth of knowledge they could
bring back in the classroom'').
\46\ See Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral Remarks of
H. Rodgin Cohen, Chairman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 69), available
at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/agendas/
minutes-03-13-08.pdf (noting that spending time in the classroom
should ``give the [practicing accountant] the time to do the
reflective thinking.''); Record of Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2008) (Oral
Remarks of Zoe-Vonna Palmrose, Deputy Chief Accountant, SEC),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
agendas/minutes-03-13-08.pdf (commenting that sabbaticals provide
the ``opportunity for reflective thinking'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Committee recommends that the over fifty HBCUs
with accounting programs require one member of their accounting
faculty annually to participate in a cross-sabbatical with a private
or public sector entity. The Committee also recommends that the
private and public sector entities provide these opportunities, as
well as focus on other arrangements to build relationships at these
educational institutions.
The Committee received testimony regarding the lack of minority
mentors and role models \47\ and notes that the profession has
recognized this situation.\48\ Thus, the Committee also recommends
that public company auditing firms intensify their efforts to create
internships and mentoring programs for students in accounting and
other complementary disciplines, including those from HBCUs and
community colleges, as a means to increase the awareness of the
accounting profession and its attractiveness among minority
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written
Submission of Gilbert R. Vasquez, Managing Partner, Vasquez &
Company LLP, 4), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/02042008/Vasquez02042008.pdf (highlighting
the lack of Hispanic role models and mentors in the accounting
profession).
\48\ See Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Questions for the
Record of George S. Willie, Managing Partner, Bert Smith & Co., 2
(Jan. 30, 2008)), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Willie120307.pdf
(recommending the establishment of a mentor program for minority
accounting students); Record of Proceedings (July 12, 2006) (Written
Testimony of Manuel Fernandez, National Managing Partner--Campus
Recruiting, KPMG LLP, to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee, 5),
available at https://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/
071206mf.pdf (identifying the lack of minority faculty mentors and
role models and noting ``[w]hen students of color do not see
professors of their own ethnic background on the accounting faculty,
they are less apt to consider the option of a career in
accountancy'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Increase the numbers of minority accounting doctorates
through focused efforts.
Some dedicated programs have succeeded in attracting minorities
to enter and complete accounting doctoral studies.\49\ In
particular, the PhD Project, an effort of the KPMG Foundation, has
worked to increase the diversity of business school faculty.\50\ The
PhD Project focuses on attracting minorities to business doctoral
programs, and provides a network of peer support. Since the PhD
Project's establishment in 1994, the number of minority professors
at U.S. business schools has increased from 294 to 889.\51\ Ninety
percent who enter the PhD Project earn their doctorates, and 99% of
those who completed their doctorates go on to teach.\52\ The PhD
Project has received over $17.5 million \53\ in funding since 1994
from corporations, foundations, universities, and other interested
parties.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ For a list of educational support programs that auditing
firms are sponsoring, see Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008)
(Written Submission of Barry Salzberg, Chief Executive Officer,
Deloitte LLP, Appendix A), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/02042008/
Salzberg020408.pdf.
\50\ For further information on the PhD Project, see https://
www.phdproject.org/mission.html.
\51\ Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Barry Salzberg, Chief Executive Officer, Deloitte LLP, Appendix A),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Salzberg020408.pdf.
\52\ See Jane Porter, Going to the Head of the Class: How the
PhD Project is Helping to Boost the Number of Minority Professors in
B-schools, BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE, Dec. 27, 2006, available at https://
www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/dec2006/bs20061227_
926455.htm.
\53\ See Record of Proceedings (July 12, 2006) (Written
Testimony of Manuel Fernandez, National Managing Partner--Campus
Recruiting, KPMG LLP, to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee, 5),
available at https://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/
071206mf.pdf.
\54\ For further information on the PhD Project, see https://
www.phdproject.org/corp_sponsors.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that programs such as these can
successfully recruit minorities to accounting doctoral studies. The
Committee recommends that auditing firms, corporations, and other
interested parties advertise existing and successful efforts to
increase the number of minority doctorates by developing further
dedicated programs. Additionally, the Committee recommends that
auditing firms, corporations, and other interested parties maintain
and increase the funding of these programs.
Recommendation 3. Ensure a sufficiently robust supply of
qualified accounting faculty to meet demand for the future and help
prepare new entrants to the profession to perform high quality
audits.
The Committee heard testimony from individuals regarding the
need to have an adequate supply of faculty with the knowledge and
experience to develop qualified professionals for the increasingly
complex and global auditing profession.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See, e.g., Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written
Submission of David W. Leslie, Chancellor Professor of Education,
College of William and Mary), available at https://www.treas.gov/
offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Leslie120307.pdf
(noting a 13.3% decline in accounting faculty from 1988 to 2004);
Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of Edward
E. Nusbaum, Chief Executive Officer, Grant Thornton LLP, and
Chairman, Grant Thornton International Board of Governors, 5),
available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/
submissions/02042008/Nusbaum020408.pdf (stating that ``recent years
have seen a reduction in accounting faculty, based on a wave of
retirements and lack of accounting PhDs coming into the system.'');
Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of Ira
Solomon, R.C. Evans Distinguished Professor, and Head, Department of
Accountancy, University of Illinois, 4), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Solomon120307.pdf (stating that ``the number of persons entering
accountancy doctoral programs is too low to sustain the accountancy
professoriate.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recognizes that there is a high level of concern
about the adequacy of both the near and the long-term supply of
doctoral faculty, especially given the anticipated pace of faculty
retirements. According to National Study of Postsecondary Faculty
data, the number of
[[Page 28196]]
full- and part-time accounting faculty at all types of educational
institutions fell by 13.3% from 20,321 in 1993 to 17,610 in 2004,
while student (undergraduate) enrollment has increased by 12.3% over
the same period.\56\ Moreover, the current pipeline of doctoral
faculty is not keeping pace with anticipated retirements. In
November 2006, it was estimated that one-third of the approximately
4,000 accounting doctoral faculty in the United States were 60 years
old or older, and one-half were 55 years old or older.\57\ The
average retirement age of accounting faculty was 62.4 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
David W. Leslie, Chancellor Professor of Education, College of
William and Mary), available at https://www.treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Leslie120307.pdf.
\57\ James R. Hasselback, 2007 Analysis of Accounting Faculty
Birthdates, available at https://aaahq.org/temp/phd/
JimHasselbackBirthdateSlide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of specialization within the accounting discipline, an
AAA study concluded that only 22% and 27% of the projected demand
for doctoral faculty in auditing and tax, respectively, will be met
by expected graduations in the coming years.\58\ However, 91% and
79% of the projected demand for doctoral faculty in financial
accounting and managerial accounting, respectively, will be met.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ R. David Plumlee, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Silvia A. Madeo,
Jamie H. Pratt, and George Krull, Assessing the Shortage of
Accounting Faculty, 21 Issues in Accounting Education, No. 2, 119
(May 2006).
\59\ R. David Plumlee, Steven J. Kachelmeier, Silvia A. Madeo,
Jamie H. Pratt, and George Krull, Assessing the Shortage of
Accounting Faculty, 21 Issues in Accounting Education, No. 2, 119
(May 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the accounting faculty supply issues, the
Committee heard testimony from witnesses on the need to ensure
faculty are qualified and able to teach students the latest market
developments, such as fair value accounting and IFRS. The Committee
learned that often new accounting faculty may have little practical
experience.\60\ Witnesses testified to the difficulty of academics'
acquiring ``practice-oriented'' knowledge as the bond between the
profession and academia is underdeveloped. Witnesses did suggest
improving these relationships with incentives for sabbaticals and
sharing practice experience.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Record of Proceedings (Dec. 3, 2007) (Written Submission of
Joseph V. Carcello, Director of Research, Corporate Governance,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 21), available at https://
www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/submissions/12032007/
Carcello120307.pdf.
\61\ Record of Proceedings (Feb. 4, 2008) (Written Submission of
Cynthia Fornelli, Executive Director, Center for Audit Quality, 2),
available at