Author Archive

NACD Spearheads Alternative Solution to Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

June 22nd, 2012 | By

Next week, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) will hold its second public hearing on a proposed rule that would mandate audit firm rotation for all publicly traded companies. One concept the PCAOB has floated is a requirement that public companies rotate audit firms at least every 10 years.

The concept has been floated as a way to address flagging investor confidence in the ability of public audit firms to maintain strict independence.  However, the proposal could have an unintended adverse and far-reaching impact on public companies, not only for directors but also for executives, investors and shareholders.

NACD members across the nation are raising concerns about this concept.  In response, NACD is leading an initiative to engage the corporate governance community and propose an alternative solution—one that allows directors to retain their governance authority while also addressing what the PCAOB perceives to be a lack of investor confidence in the processes by which companies ensure auditor independence.

Audit quality and independence are important issues for directors, and reassuring investor and regulator confidence is a worthy goal.  But in our view, mandatory auditor rotation devalues and undermines the important role boards—and audit committees in particular—play in helping auditors maintain independence, objectivity and skepticism.

In our formal comment letter to the PCAOB, NACD expressed concerns about this proposal on behalf of our members and the entire boardroom community.  We objected to a mandated “one-size-fits-all” solution that would detract from the authority of the audit committee, supplant the board’s governance process and possibly generate unintended risk for the company.

The NACD was not alone in raising questions about the concept. The public comment period triggered a record-breaking volume of comment letters to the PCAOB and vigorous discussion at a roundtable in which NACD participated here in Washington last March.  Several roundtable panelists suggested that NACD was a key source to weigh in on board-level solutions, and the PCAOB noted that it would be receptive to our input.

The NACD Audit Committee Chair Advisory Council is spearheading this initiative, building a coalition comprised of investor representatives (including the Council of Institutional Investors) and the audit profession (including the Center for Audit Quality).   This coalition has a dual mission:

  1. Identify and evaluate with the corporate governance community an alternative solution to mandated regulations on auditor rotation.
  2. Promote this solution within the community and advocate its beneficial effects to the PCAOB and other influencers.

Our goal is to provide our recommendations and rationale to the PCAOB no later than December 2012, in anticipation of the PCAOB finalizing its recommendations in early 2013.

We need your input.  As a first step to formulating an alternative solution to mandatory auditor rotation, we are asking our 12,000 members to offer their own insights on how boards—and audit committees in particular—can apply leading practices to build investor and public trust.

Click here to provide your thoughts through a brief electronic survey. Responses are anonymous and will only be reviewed in aggregate form.

Your participation in this initial survey is a first step in shaping a framework for recommendations that will guide audit committee behavior and actions on matters of auditor independence, objectivity and skepticism.  These recommendations will be shared with the director and investor communities over the course of the coming months.

Ultimately, NACD will deliver these recommendations to the PCAOB by the end of the year, and we will position those concepts as representative of the will and the expertise of the public company directors and boards.

At NACD, we are committed to advancing and promoting best practices of companies to ensure proper board oversight that protects shareholders, investors and employees.

PCAOB’s Proposed Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation Misses the Point

March 20th, 2012 | By

Last year, when the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board began soliciting comments on ways that auditor independence, objectivity and professional skepticism could be enhanced through mandatory audit firm rotation, NACD felt obligated to share our perspective. While NACD agrees with the PCAOB’s initiative to improve company audits, instituting a term-limit system may be the wrong approach. View NACD’s comment letter at www.NACDonline.org/CommentLetter2011.

As the only organization serving as the voice of the director, NACD is aware of the burdens that mandatory audit firm rotation places on boards and businesses alike. The turnover of audit firms could undermine the board’s duty to evaluate the firm’s work as required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Auditor rotation may accomplish the PCAOB’s intended goals but it has not yet shown this process to be cost effective nor has it shown that it would enhance financial reporting. On behalf of NACD’s nearly 12,000 members, we’ve submitted a comment letter to the PCAOB on this issue, outlining our five major issues with the proposal as drafted.

1. The board and audit committee are uniquely qualified to evaluate the work of an audit firm.

The board of directors, and more specifically the audit committee, is best positioned to judge the effectiveness of an auditor. An audit committee will possess the necessary objectivity to make this judgment. Furthermore, the committee will understand the most important aspects of a company’s strategy, financial reporting and internal controls. As such, along with the board, the audit committee is uniquely qualified to evaluate the work of an auditor and, if appropriate, to renew the auditor’s contract of engagement. Limiting the tenure of an auditor through mandatory firm rotation would infringe upon the committee.

2. The board and audit committee have a statutory responsibility for the oversight of auditors. Mandatory audit firm rotation supplants this authority.

Reducing the board’s options to keep an existing auditor runs counter to the spirit of existing law. Audit committees are directed to appoint, compensate and oversee the external auditor. These requirements came from the implementation of SOX. The act established qualifications for audit committee members and delegated specific responsibilities to protect the shareholders’ interest in accurate financial reporting.

Mandatory audit firm rotation would supplant the statutory responsibility and authority of audit committees to select the best auditor for a company and oversee its work. The authority of the board and its committees is at the heart of the corporate governance framework, and reducing that authority would result in weakened oversight and guidance directors provide for U.S. companies.

NACD believes change should occur based on the performance of the auditors—not an arbitrary timeline. Boards of directors should constantly assess the value an outside auditor is bringing to the company. When performance is lacking, a board of directors must step in and make a change. This type of assessment takes time and effort, but boards and audit committees are dedicated to the task.

3. Audit firm rotation is unnecessary for objectivity, since there is already a requirement for mandatory audit partner rotation —as well as rules for auditor independence.

Under current rules implemented under SOX, there is a requirement to rotate the lead partner in audits every five years, with a cooling off period of another five years. Having a new audit partner in charge ensures objectivity. In addition, the audit profession has spent years defining ever more stringent rules to define auditor independence. It would be difficult in this day and age to find a single auditor or audit firm with conflicts of interest in relation to the audited client. This regulatory framework already ensures the objectivity desired by proposed firm rotation, rendering firm rotation unnecessary. 

4. Developing an understanding of the company may take auditors years to develop and to deliver the maximum benefits.

On a practical level, mandatory rotation may also reduce the quality of an audit. It is common knowledge that quality audits are dependent upon the auditors’ understanding of the company. As an audit firm’s institutional knowledge of a company grows, so does its ability to identify critical issues. This understanding often takes years to develop.

5. Mandatory audit firm rotation is disruptive and costly, particularly in special situations.

Mandatory rotation forces a change that may not only be undesirable, but is disruptive and time-consuming. This is particularly true in times of corporate change. For example, a need to change auditors during M&A transactions, corporate financing or a change in management could prove daunting. A confluence of events such as this would greatly expand the cost and difficulty of the transaction or transition and potentially hamper an effective audit of the company. The time and resources required for management and audit committees to manage all of these transitions would be significant. Moreover, the additional work required for a new firm to get up to speed would add cost and possibly delay to the audit.

Call to action:  Please join me contacting the PCAOB to let your voice be known.

 

A Ballroom Filled with Board Members: Take Your Places for the Conference Cotillion

May 25th, 2011 | By

“You’ll have to get on your dancing shoes” said Donna as we watched the Dancing with the Stars finale the other night, and I must admit a shudder ran through me.

“What do you mean?” I asked, worried that she was going to suggest a Latin salsa class or sign me up for the square dance squad at church. My toes refuse to twinkle and I am to ballroom dance what hippos are to hip hop.

Hines Ward. He's no Ken Daly

“Well, I see the NACD conference site is open for business” said my wife “and you know how quickly your dance card fills up every October in DC.”

She’s right. Our conference has sold out for the last two years and we’re expecting more than 800 directors at the JW Marriott in Washington, DC from October 2-4 this fall. It’s great to see chapter leaders, members I first met at roundtables or education events, Board Leadership Fellows and our own NACD board, but it sure is hard to find time to take a turn around the floor with everyone—and to break in on all the interesting networking conversations going on left, right and center.

Conference is like a cotillion, and at all hours of the day and night board members from companies big and small, public and private, from all over America and, increasingly, all over the world, are in constant, swirling motion. You’ll definitely need your comfy shoes.

Like everyone else who makes certain to attend, I like to catch as many break outs as possible. There are 24 this year and it takes the speed and stamina of Maksim Chmerkovskiy to run between them. One definitely not to miss: Bonnie Hill from the board of Yum Brands, Jim Brady from the board of Constellation Energy, former Governor Bill Owens from Colorado at the time of Columbine, and communications guru Richard Levick talking about the board’s role in crisis planning and management in the year of the beef taco, Fukushima and political volatility all over the world.

We have a full day of programming on Sunday this year: plan to attend one of five board committee forums or get to know fellow directors by joining our special private tours of the Capitol or the National Archives.

 

Sir Peter Bonfield

As I write, Sir Peter Bonfield, who has contributed a lifetime to driving international technology innovation and who now sits on the board of Sony Corporation (among others) has agreed to join the opening plenary on Global Governance  with Ambassador Roz Ridgway and our board member Michele Hooper (who Sir Peter knows from the board of AstraZeneca) . It’s a small world—although The Honorable Barbara Hackman Franklin and The Honorable Charlene Barshefsky may beg to differ. They’ll be sharing their view from 30,000 feet on one of the rare occasions when they are not in the air flying to China or other far flung hot spots.

Members of our latest Blue Ribbon Commission on Effective Lead Directors will take the stage as will The Honorable Leo Strine from the Delaware Court of Chancery. As usual, you won’t be able to turn around without bumping into a big name from the business world or someone from the Administration or the Hill. As always, thanks to our fantastic line-up of sponsors who make it possible for us to offer you an event of this size and scale.

Myrtle Potter

I am looking forward to meeting Medco director Myrtle Potter who is based on the West Coast and catching up with Chris Kubasik, President and COO of Lockheed Martin and a board member at USO—an organization that I am sure is close to all our hearts. I know you will have your own “dance card” of movers and shakers in the world of governance. Just remember, you can’t be part of the fun if you don’t make it to the ballroom floor. Register now and I look forward to seeing you twirl by in the middle of all the excitement this October in Washington DC.

Check out all the conference speakers here.