THE auditors of UK plc pocket 1.6 times as much from providing lucrative extra services to their clients as they do from the audit, prompting fresh allegations that companies are still not doing enough to address the objectivity issues these payments raise.
''Robust and transparent'' disclosures in respect of an auditor's independence ''continue to be the exception and not the rule'', according to a new study by Edinburgh-based Company Reporting, the respected accounting analyst.
Of 299 listed firms analysed by Company Reporting, some 52% disclosed in their most recent annual report that they pay their auditors more for other services, such as tax, corporate finance, and consulting advice.
The government's new Companies Bill, published this month, would force plcs to publish detailed information on the type and cost of services which companies buy from their auditors. The object is to address independence concerns which came to a head with Enron's collapse. Enron's auditor, Andersen, was compromised by huge non-audit fees paid by the now-defunct US energy trader.
The growing disparity between audit and non-audit fees has long been controversial, with critics arguing that an auditor will be loath to flag up book-keeping anomalies if they have an overwhelming financial interest in keeping the client. Analysis by The Herald earlier this year showed that Scotland's biggest quoted companies pay their auditors nearly twice as much in non-audit fees.
The new bill's provision is part of a regulatory clampdown which has nevertheless stopped short of a wide-ranging curb on the extra services an auditor may provide. The Smith Report on audit committees, published last January, requires committees to act as beefed up guardians of auditor integrity. This remit includes developing and implementing policy concerning the supply of non-audit services.
Smith - named after inquiry chairman Sir Robert Smith, chairman of Weir Group - only took effect for reporting periods beginning in November. In the meantime, it would appear that Enron has made little difference to the fee boon enjoyed by the ''big four'' - PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, and Ernst & Young - which audit the vast majority of UK plcs.
On average, non-audit services outweigh audit fees by a factor of 1.6 to 1, but in exceptional cases, such as Xstrata, the ratio rises as high as 12:1. The mining group's $1.3m audit fee, paid to Ernst & Young, was dwarfed by $16m in fees for other services.
Other ''outliers'' include financial services group Britannic, which paid (pounds) 700,000 for the audit and (pounds) 5.2m for other services, and BSkyB, which paid Deloitte (pounds) 800,000 for its audit and a whopping (pounds) 7.8m in non-audit fees.
The satellite broadcaster is an exception in that the disparity did force a minor investor rebellion ahead of the company's annual meeting
last month. BSkyB shareholder Morley Fund Management said it would vote against Deloitte's reappointment, but in the event the backlash fizzled out.
Company Reporting found that those companies who pay the biggest multiples of non-audit fees are the least likely to disclose much more about those payments than the simple fact that they were made. The Edinburgh consultancy also warns that analysts will always be wary of auditors' independent judgment wherever big disparities continue to exist.
''This blase attitude towards disclosure suggests to us that there will be a significant change of practice to both internal audit committee workings and annual report disclosures following the recommendations of the Smith report,'' said the analyst.
''Our findings show that robust and transparent disclosures in respect of auditors' independence and objectivity are the exception and not the rule. Moreover, those companies which buck the trend and address objectivity and independence will have to smarten up their practices and disclosures to meet Smith's recommendations.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article