Executive Summary : ' Big Four '

The audit profession is a relative new comer to the accounting world. The Industrial Revolution, with the growing business sector, was the spark that resulted in auditing techniques being sought out and utilized. Initially, audit techniques and methods were adopted by companies to control costs and detect fraud, which is more closely aligned with internal auditing. However, the need for mandatory oversight of public companies was recognized after the great stock market crash of 1929 (Byrnes, et al., 2012). This brought about the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that point, the SEC was tasked with

Professional standards do not allow for a company’s auditors to also provide tax services and still retain their independence. The SEC and the PCAOB have put restrictions on the nonaudit services that a company’s auditors can provide. These restrictions really limit the company’s auditors to the extent that if a firm provides auditing services for a company they cannot really provide any other types of services. This limitation was put into place in order to maintain the independence of auditors and the companies that they audit. If an accounting firm was allowed to provide auditing services as well as tax services to a company, the independence, in such a case, of the firm would not be maintained because the firm would be in part auditing

Auditing firms are no longer able to focus primarily on selling additional services. Instead, they are now concerned with providing excellent service to the client. This has resulted in additional tax and financial reporting

Exceptions can be approved by the Board and are made in cases where the revenue paid for such services contributes less than 5% of revenues paid to the auditing firm. Also, a public accounting firm may provide these non-audit services along with audit services if it is pre-approved by the audit committee of the public company. The audit committee will disclose to investors in periodic reports its decision to approve the performance of non-audit services and audit services by the same accounting firm. This requirement to disclose to investors is likely to inhibit auditing committees from approving the performance of auditing and non-auditing services by the same accounting firm. Other sections outline audit partner rotations, accounting firm reporting procedures, and executive officer independence. Specifically, subsection 206 states that the CEO, Controller, CFO, Chief Accounting Officer or similarly positioned employees cannot have been employed by the company's audit firm for one year prior to the audit.

The act is an exhaustive piece of legislation that contains eleven major section and some of the most important titles outline requirements on auditor independence, analyst conflict of interests, corporate responsibility, enhanced financial disclosures, internal controls assessment, and corporate fraud accountability (Bainbridge, 2007). One of the main benefits of the legislation is to establish auditor independence requirements and rules for the prevention of conflicts of interest in particular by prohibiting auditing firms from offering other services. Prior to Sarbanes–Oxley, the auditing professionals were self-regulated and the decisions that controlled the industry, such as violation of ethical standards, were made largely by auditors themselves (Verschoor, 2012). In order to prevent conflict of interests, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act grants the PCAOB authority to oversee and regulate auditing firms, conduct investigations, and impose disciplinary sanctions against accounting firms (McDonough, 2004). Another provision of the Act is requiring senior executives to be personally accountable and responsible for the financial information reports by certifying that the information is correct.(Welch, 2006). A byproduct of the law implementation is a significant quality improvement on accounting practices;

Section 201 prohibits any registered public accounting firm from providing the following non-audit services to audit clients: “bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records, financial info systems design or implementation, appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, actuarial services, internal audit outsourcing services, management functions or human resources, broker or dealer investment advisor or investment banking services, legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit, any other service the board determines impermissible” (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002). Section 202 requires the issuer’s audit committee to preapprove all auditing and non-auditing services that will be provided to the issuer (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 203 establishes mandatory and substantive rotation of audit partner and partner responsible for review of the audit every 5 years (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 204 needs the public accounting firm to report to the audit committee such as “critical accounting policies and practices, alternative accounting treatments within GAAP discussed with management and material written communications between auditor’s firm and management of the issuer” (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 206 prohibits the public accounting firm from providing audit services for the issuer if the CEO, CFO, CAO or any person serving in the equivalent capacity of

Section 404, places great emphasis on internal controls and it is apparent that in the last couple of years this sections total costs have been going down severely. However, it is still high enough to maintain that it deters smaller companies from having enough money left over to be more innovative (Prince, 2005). As it was stated above the investors were the people who were supposed to benefit the most, but instead due to these high rules and compliances, companies have to follow, it is the auditors who gain the most. There are two ways to solve this problem; the first method is to not have a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to the different sizes in company, and subsequently auditors understanding and focusing more on lower risk accounts and moving to the Higher risk accounts (Basilo

One of the arguments critics had about the law was the “mandate that required public companies to obtain an independent audit of their internal control practices” (Hanna, 2014). The costs associated with this were unfavorable to small companies in theory (Hanna, 2014). Although there have been amendments to the act that benefit smaller cap companies, surveys have been conducted that seem to indicate that the act has prevented some companies from going public, and some public companies considering going private because of

It affects the businesses by making the corporate officers can interact with the auditors. The act gives more independence to outside auditors as well. With the new act every business should know that every financial statement they produce should be valid and able to be backed up. Businesses can no longer get off the hook for simply not knowing that they were

The act endorses companies to change the practice and regulations of accounting and auditing. It required them to maintain good financial recorded which were different than the past. The management team is held personally liable for the reliability and accuracy of the financial statements. All publically listed companies must establish a system of internal controls which must be evaluated by management at least quarterly and external auditors are required to conduct independent assessments of company’s in –house internal controls as well as report any fault or fraudulent acts they observe.

Many believe it was politics that got it pushed through, and that its intent was to lower risk taking and competitiveness. Even after so many years it is still difficult to measure the legislations overall net benefits. One worthy note to justify the legislations achievements despite its criticism is the fact that the act itself and the institutions it created are still going on intact since its original enactment. With the mandate to require public companies to obtain an independent auditor of their internal control practices, many small companies felt the impact on the financial side, until it was ultimately deferred for companies with market caps of less than $75 million and finally made permanent in the Dodd-Frank Act. Eventually audit standards were also modified in 2007, which according to an article from the Journal of Accountancy called “Changes in Accounting for Changes” by Jack O. Hall, “reduced costs for many firms by 25 percent or more per year.” Even with the act having high initial costs, research suggests that it has proved beneficial. Many corporations have been able to use the quality information from independent auditors to assess acquisitions more effectively, mangers have improved on internal reporting procedures, and the internal control testing has become more cost effective over

The first is that raised cost through the additional time spent and additional set up costs as well. It affects in both auditors and managers of firms. For the manager, ‘New auditors, they argue lack sufficient knowledge regarding firm-specific risks and, as a consequence, audit failures would likely increase.’ (782, purple) Supposing firm does not need to change related audit company, auditors might know better about firm specific expertise as well as they might not be fully understand of financial statements. For the auditors, if compulsory audit firm radiation implemented under the government regulation, new audit firms should investigate new client to analyze their characteristics and management flows. Therefore it could be concluded that will be high costly because of additional costs such as human resources and time to catch up compared with keeping one audit firm

If independence was not viewed as an important issue in the field of auditing then there would not be rules and regulations strictly forbidding it. With the scandals of Enron, WorldCom, Deloitte and Touche, and others it is apparent that not all auditors act in an ethical manner. With the SEC and other organizations cracking down on these issues it will hopefully clean up the image of auditing in the future.

Corporate governance explains the official rule and regulative parameters for controlling and overseeing the entity (Cascarino, 2012, pg. 131). Responsibilities following the audit committee include keeping up to date safe guards and flow of communication with the auditors (Dogas, C., 2015). Corporate governance clearly explains the “rules, processes, and laws under which entities are operated, regulated, and controlled and includes such the board of directors and the audit” (Cascarino, 2012, pg. 131). After the effects were felt of the first large fraudulent crime of Enron and WorldCom, “the United States enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) with the plan to widen the duties of auditors, management, audit committees, and boards of directors” (Cascarino, 2012, pg.

For nonpublic companies auditing guidance are issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, AICPA. Prior to PCAOB, AICPA served as the primary governing body of public accounting profession. Since the roles have changed with PCAOB regarding the auditing standards for public companies, the AICPA is still developing standards for the nonpublic companies. The organization has developed four fundamental principles that govern an audit conducted in accordance with GAAP. The principles are: