Balancing expertise and independence
From time to time, there have been calls to implement more stringent requirements on auditor independence. Previous public policy proposals advocating to change the structure of the audit engagement – or the structure of the firms themselves – typically underappreciate that there is often a tradeoff between auditor expertise and independence. Attempts at increasing independence requirements, such as doing away with the company-pay model, banning all non-audit services or mandatory firm rotation – may lead to reducing expertise, and result in a decrease in audit quality.
Such proposals also ignore the strong market-based incentives – including reputation, litigation and regulatory incentives – for auditors to have an independent mindset. These incentives are powerful motivators for auditors to perform a high-quality audit, applying their expertise, objectivity, integrity, and professional skepticism. The implication for public policy is that a single-minded focus on merely increasing auditor independence requirements, while ignoring both the market-based independence incentives and the potential negative impact on auditors’ expertise, may not generate the expected effect.
Rather, it is the expertise together with independence of the public company auditor that make up the essential components for the value of the audit and audit quality. Both expertise and independence are necessary, and neither is sufficient. Having an independent third party with the relevant expertise to opine on the financial statements prepared by company management has long been a pillar that provides confidence in the information being reported.
Growing demand for company information outside of the financial statements
Increasingly, public companies are providing other information that investors and other financial statement users are asking for, and relying on, in evaluating a company and making investment and capital allocation decisions. This may consist of other financial information, such as non-GAAP measures, key performance indicators (KPIs), or nontraditional financial and other similar information relating to a company’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data. Today, this information is not subject to the same independent auditor review as company financial statements or internal control over financial reporting.
What makes public company auditors a viable option for companies, audit committees, investors, and other stakeholders seeking assurance on the reliability of these new types of information? The answer is simple: this regulated profession – with independent and expert professionals – has a long-standing history of serving the public interest by enhancing the confidence in, and reliability of, company reported financial information. This same confidence-enhancing skillset can meet the needs of the evolving capital markets.
Download the full report PDF to explore the benefits of an independent audit.