The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

The PCAOB is the public accounting oversight board created by the Congress via the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It appears the PCAOB has laid the groundwork to effectively monitor and review the public accounting

The act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board which is a nonprofit that was established by Congress. This board’s mission is to ensure accurate as well as independent audit

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to assume the responsibility of overseeing the auditors of public companies. The PCAOB is a private-sector, non-profit corporation. It was established to "protect the interests of investors and further the public interests in the preparation of informative, fair, and independent audit reports". (The PCAOB) Although the PCAOB is a private sector organization, it has many government-like regulatory functions. The PCAOB was created in response to an increasing number of accounting restatements by public companies during the 1990s and a series of recent high-profile scandals like Enron and WorldCom. Prior to the PCAOB, the audit industry was self-regulated

In the early 2000s, corporate financial statement fraud was rampant, as companies such as Enron and WorldCom used shady accounting practices to inflate their revenues and hide losses. This led to the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the most extensive form of accounting reform legislation ever passed. It had many consequences for publicly traded companies and public accounting firms, some of which were positive, while others were detrimental. One of the detrimental impacts, the cost of compliance, was alleviated at least partially by the introduction of Auditing Standard Five in 2007. This paper will examine the time period leading up to the passage of the act, the different parts of the legislation, the introduction of Auditing Standard Five, and the impact on registrants and auditors.

“Outside auditors play a crucial role in our nation’s financial system. As the watchdogs of corporate accounting, they are supposed to protect investors” (Hilzenrath, 2010). The question is how effective are these outside auditors in protecting investors? When you think about the failures that have occurred: Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, and Global crossing to name a few, one would really question the effectiveness of these outside auditors. As a result of these failures, Congress pass the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. This act in turn created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to police the outside auditors and ensures they are protecting the investors.

Audit planning details change from client to client, no matter the complications presented. Each evolution of society’s business world prompts rule makers to update authoritative accounting standards in order to allow for changes, auditors are then responsible to certify their client’s financial reports adhere within compliance according to current authoritative standards. Many cite the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 as being legislation that has had the most profound impact on the auditing profession; incidentally, an auditor’s job is to certify financial statements are a fair representation of a company’s financial position, at a given point in time, using current acceptable standards. Society deems auditors as gatekeepers and expects the auditing profession to find and report fraud, prevent fraud, and make certain financial statements are true, fair representation of a company’s financial position. Even though the rules, regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles can sometimes be difficult to find and translate, the public expects auditors to prevent events such as those that sparked SOX. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) developed the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) that became the authoritative source July 2009 (FASB, 2009). Perhaps the hardest impact auditors experience with FASB ASC is attempting to ascertain clients’ FASB ASC references in disclosures on financial statements; “management cannot delegate this function to the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enforced in the past but caught everyone’s attention when drastic audit failures from Enron and Worldcom happened. An enhanced act (SOX) was enacted in 2002 improving audit quality. In particular, section 404 provides guidance of assessment to internal control. For an accounting perspective, internal control is a system for internal and external auditors to measure performance and recommend the improvement of the control. It is definitely correct that both enforcement and the system are to address the risks of frauds. In the meantime, a new regulatory agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was created to monitor the work of public accountants. Among SOX and the PCAOB, accounting

According to PCAOB (2015), “the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is a nonprofit corporation established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Board is composed of five members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was modeled on private self-regulatory organizations in the securities industry—such as the New York Stock Exchange—that investigate and discipline their own members subject to Commission oversight. Unlike these organizations, the Board is a Government-created entity with expansive powers to govern an entire industry.”

Section 101 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act establishes the Public Company Accounting Oversights Board (PCAOB). The Board consists of five financially-literate members that are appointed for five-year terms. Three of these members must not be a CPA currently nor have been one in the past. The other two members must be, previously or currently, a certified public accountant. The main focus of this Board is (1) to register along with discipline accounting firms that prepare audit reports on companies that are public; (2) conduct inspections and/or investigations of registered accounting firms that audit public companies; and (3) establish audit and accounting standards.

The importance of audit committees increased through the years and especially from pre-Sarbanes – Oxley to post-Sarbanes – Oxley. Although, what are the responsibilities of the audit committee members? How does a Chief Audit Executive (CAE) more effectively serve their audit committee members? How do auditors communicate with audit committees? What are the requirements for audit committees? Most of these questions are inherited from what the audit committee’s best practices are.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB, 2012) believes that convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with international financial reporting standards (IFRS) is necessary because business worldwide would benefit from having a single set of high quality international accounting standards. This would make it easier for cross-border financial reporting. The FASB makes the claim that it would help with domestic reporting but that seems counterintuitive and the FASB does not back up this claim with evidence. Ultimately the benefit is that companies only deal with one set of standards worldwide and that investors worldwide are able to make sound investment decisions about different companies as a result.

this report paper, it will take into consideration addressing and understanding the proposed changes and how they stand to change auditor’s line of work. The paper will discuss the concepts of disclosure and CAMs in length for an easier understanding of the situation and well as address some of the issues that can potentially or have raised from the concepts of proposed changed. The report will also look into possible recommendations and address areas that need further study before making a conclusion.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued for public comment two Exposure Drafts related to its disclosure framework project. The first exposure draft proposes amendments to Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts - Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, Chapter 3 – Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to clarify the concept of “materiality”. FASB defines materiality as, information is material if omitting it or misstating it could influence decisions that users make on the basis of the financial information of a specific reporting entity. In other words, materiality is an entity-specific aspect of relevance based on the nature or magnitude or both of the items to which the information relates in the context of an individual entity’s financial report. Consequently, the Board cannot specify a uniform quantitative threshold for materiality or predetermine what could be material in a particular situation.

To enhance the perceived value of financial report audits, the IAASB has set out the public issuance of Key Audit Matters (KAM) or audit commentaries in the Proposed New Audit Report. Although some investors have expressed receptiveness to this proposal, reactions from auditors and their clients have been mixed. I personally believe that there are merits to the disclosure of KAM given the auditor’s strong understanding of the entity’s business, however it is debatable whether the benefits outweigh the costs of auditors potentially overstepping independence requirements and clients risking to face increased audit fees.

An important function of the accounting field is to provide external users of financial statements with assurance that the financial information being presented is both reliable and accurate. This basic function of accounting is so important that there is an entire field of experts, called auditors, dedicated to assuring its proper performance. Throughout history there have been many instances in which the basic equilibrium between an institution and current/potential investor has been threatened due to a lack of accountability and trust between the two parties. This issue has been the catalyst for many discussions regarding the proper procedures a firm should follow in order to provide